“As one of the conditions of considering publication of this article, Ron Unz has required me to personally apologize to commenter Rurik for having previously threatened to “dox” him based on our private correspondence. I am therefore providing that apology, and also sincerely promising to make no such threats nor take such actions against him or any other commenters here in the future.”

I recall how, as a child, in my teens, and as a much younger man than now, people of the older generation would reminisce nostalgically about where they were when they heard that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas. When such conversations arose, naturally, people of my generation would feel kind of left out. On the day in question, 11/22/1963, I myself was not yet born. In fact, I did not exist at all, since I was conceived about 4 months after that.

It occurred to me recently that now, with 9/11, things have come full circle. Now, younger readers will have to bear with us oldsters when we reminisce about the events of 9/11/2001. Those who were not there can only imagine the ambiance of the time. In retrospect, we must have been in a state of induced trauma as we were presented a whole series of extraordinary events, a fantastical story with a diverse cast of unlikely characters.

Almost immediately, they presented us with the terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden. In retrospect, Bin Laden seems to be a kind of cut-out cartoon character, an orientalist villain in the mold of Fu Manchu or Dr. No, plotting deadly terrorist attacks around the world from his mountain lair in far-off Afghanistan.

Notwithstanding Bin Laden’s cartoonish aspects, within 6 weeks, the United States, along with her NATO allies, had launched a full-scale invasion of this huge country (about as big as Germany and Italy combined) in order to locate this one man and bring him to justice. Wanted. Dead or Alive.

Suddenly, life was imitating art. (Even worse, bad art.)

One far lesser character (among others) presented to us in those days was the ethnic Chinese flight stewardess Betty Ong, a brave woman who, right before her tragic untimely death, had managed to make a phone call from Flight 11, that (conveniently?) established much of the official hijacking story.

A couple of years ago, maybe in a fit of nostalgia, I recalled the fearless Chinese superwoman, Betty Ong, and was looking for information about her. She has a Wikipedia page with a short (very short, minimal) biographical blurb. Betty was born in San Francisco on 5 February 1956 and, after a rather uneventful life in which she never married or had children or, apparently, much of a social life, made a phone call from a hijacked plane, and then died.

Now, at this point in the exposition, I shall make no bones about the fact that I quickly developed great doubts regarding whether this Betty Ong is a real, flesh and blood person. As much as I looked, I could not find any description of this person that sounded like it was written by somebody who really knew her. The Wikipedia blurb is one thing, but the memorial website maintained by her ostensible family is another. It jumped out at me that whoever had written the description of Betty on that site, obviously never knew this person.

I even expressed these doubts here and here, which is when I broached the subject to Ron Unz.

Now, from the point of view of 9/11 Truth investigations, the only important thing to establish regarding Betty Ong is whether the phone call she allegedly made is real. Whether Betty Ong herself is real hardly matters. The general view in the 9/11 Truth community is that all the phone calls allegedly made from hijacked airplanes on that day, including Betty’s, are plainly fake.

My own view is that, while Betty Ong being a real person is not of any importance regarding 9/11 per se, the issue has a more general significance. If you can establish one case of an invented vicsim in a synthetic event, then there are surely other cases in other synthetic events and narratives. (And probably in the 9/11 narrative itself.)

After I brought up the case of Betty Ong in a discussion that developed under that earlier article, Ron Unz expressed that he was flabbergasted that I could seriously doubt this person’s existence. (N.B. I only ever expressed doubt, never absolute certainty.) “Surely, Ron reasoned, “given the available public information about Betty, it would be easy to verify her existence.”

Well, Betty’s life history is rather sparse. One thing that she is alleged to have done is to have graduated from George Washington High School in San Francisco in 1974. This datum occurs in various places. Ron expressed a very high level of confidence in private email that the high school yearbook of that year would put any doubts to rest.

I got in touch with the school’s alumni association, representing that I was an alumnus from that time period, and was very interested in getting my hands on some old yearbooks.

“Oh, the memories…”

My contact there told me that there was a long waiting list to get any original yearbooks. However, she did add that there was a project afoot to digitize them all and put them up on the Internet. So there was little more for me to do on the yearbook front.

I also scoured social media looking for anybody who both claimed to have known Betty and, in particular, described this person in a way that it seemed like they really knew her. I could not find anything. I also discovered that there were very few photos of Betty available and what few there were all seemed to have been photoshopped.

One thing that I did learn meanwhile (from a correspondent in Colorado who had also taken an interest in our gal Betty) is that a site called sfgenealogy.org had all the George Washington High graduating class lists online. In fact, at the time Betty would have attended this school, there were two graduating classes per year: Spring and Fall. For example, the Spring and Fall of 1974 are available here and here.

No sign of Betty Ong. My Colorado correspondent pointed this out to me but then a little while later wrote me a new message to tell me that Betty was indeed on the Spring 1973 Graduating class list. Yes, there she was all right! Right in between Vivian Olsen and Jacki Ono! I have to admit that I was excited by this since it was the first somewhat official corroboration of any of Betty’s meager life history. Of course, she allegedly graduated in 1974, but decades later, surely one could misremember 1973 as 1974. It’s an easy mistake.

Now, I was hardly convinced. It also seemed quite possible that somebody had been pressured to add her name to the list, since, by now, heroic Betty Ong was one of the more famous alumni of George Washington High School.

“There is some innocent ommission on this list and the flight attendant Betty Ong is not on the graduating list. This was obviously an oversight. Could you please add her name?”

What would really have put things to rest would have been a page from the original yearbook with a photo that was clearly a younger version of Betty Ong. However, as I say, I had no access to any yearbooks.

Nearly two years passed, but I guess I never completely got over Betty. Not very long ago, I was idly typing Betty Ong related search strings into Google, not expecting anything new, but then, much to my surprise, I saw that the relevant yearbooks were now online! On a site called classmates.com. The site required me to sign up for an account which I duly did and I located the 1973 yearbook and eagerly looked for the Spring 1973 graduating class photos.

I assume you are on the edge of your seat by now, dear reader, and I will not keep you in suspense any longer. Here is the relevant yearbook page:

George Washington High, Spring 1973 Graduating Class. No Betty Ong.

As I pointed out above, Betty Ong should be right between Vivian Olsen and Jacki Ono, in the right hand page, on the second row. As you can see, those two people directly follow one another and there is no space in between their photos where a photo of Betty Ong (or anybody else) ever could have been.

I reasoned that it was possible that some people did graduate, but for some reason, they were not present the day the yearbook photos were taken. I cannot absolutely exclude that. However, I note that, on the above yearbook page there are 20 people, spanning from Russell Nakai down to Devon Owyang. If you compare this with the people on the sfgenealogy.orgSpring 1973 graduating class, there is perfect correspondence — EXCEPT for one person, Betty Ong. On the sfgenealogy.org list, there are 21 people between Russel Nakai and Devon Owyang. The extra person is Betty Ong.

It looked pretty clear that my original suspicion was probably true: Betty Ong was not in the Spring 1973 graduating class either and had been inserted into that list. I was about ready to wrap up the Betty Ong high school yearbook investigation, when I did remember that there were two graduating classes in that year: Spring 1973 and Fall 1973. Betty was not on the sfgenealogy.org list for Fall of 1973, but just for completeness, not expecting to find anything, I looked in the appropriate page in the yearbook.

Consulting the Fall 1973 graduating class list, I saw that, if (contrary to fact) Betty Ong were there, she would have to be in between Wayne Ogawa and Betty Ow. So I located the appropriate page in the online yearbook and I discovered something absolutely extraordinary:

Yes, there was indeed an entry for Betty Ong in the appropriate page of the Fall 1973 graduating class! She’s right there on the right-hand page, second row in the center. However, I had been looking for the Chinese flight attendant Betty Ong, but now I had my first encounter with Black Betty! The Chinese Betty Ong was intriguing enough, but I daresay that Black Betty is even more fascinating!

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Sherlock Holmes, famous (fictional) English detective

Like many of you, I read the Sherlock Holmes stories as a child, and I remember Sherlock Holmes’s famous line. To apply the Sherlock Holmes reasoning, we need a comprehensive list of all the various possibilities that we could then eliminate one by one. This is what I come up with:

The page contains no error and has not been tampered with. Ergo, there really was a Black Betty Ong (obviously, no relation to Chinese Betty) who coincidentally attended from the same high school in the same time period that our Chinese Betty Ong, the flight attendant, was allegedly there.

Either by mistake or by deliberate tampering, somebody put the picture of the black girl where Chinese Betty’s photo should be.

The page has been tampered with and the name of the black girl was replaced with that of Betty Ong. (It looks to be inconceivable that this is an innocent mistake.)

I would say that possibility #1, though it is not an outright physical impossibility, is so utterly improbable that we could reject it out of hand. That leaves us with options #2 and #3.

Possibility #2 is a stretch, especially the variant where this is an honest mistake. It is quite a stretch to think that, of all the places for there to be an “innocent mistake” in the yearbook, it is precisely where Chinese Betty Ong should appear. I would add also that I have looked through quite a bit of the yearbook looking for clues, and I can say that, whenever somebody has an obviously Asian surname, the corresponding photo is always of somebody who is clearly Asian! There are no black (or white) students with surnames like Ong, or Wong, or Nakamura anywhere in the yearbook, except for on this page, where we have our Black Betty Ong!

In any case, unless you are willing to believe the coincidence theory of #1, we see clearly that the photo and the name do not match. Finally, in my view, it is far more likely that the name was altered than the photo. I am not myself in the business of tampering with high school yearbooks or any other documents, but I think it stands to reason that altering text on a page is far far less work than altering graphical or photographic content. So the working assumption is that it is the text that was altered.

Based on that, we could certainly make the conjecture that, if you could get your hands on the original page in an original yearbook (not this digitized version) Black Betty would be there, but she would have some other name. Her real name. And the surname would fall in between Ogawa and Ow on an alphabetical list.

O’Leary? Osborne?

I think the above converges on what must have happened. It is hard to understand why anybody would put in Betty’s name in place of a black girl’s on that page, but all the other possibilities really make no sense whatsoever. Granted, it hardly makes sense for anybody to do this as part of a 9/11 cover-up. After all, anybody who goes through the above steps and encounters Black Betty is going to start becoming very suspicious indeed.

I have a vague memory in my student years of a rather zany professor who liked to party with his students. He had a lot of great stories. He told us that, years back, he had a summer job at the urban planning division of the local government. As a prank basically, in a new suburban area that was in the planning phase, he had named a street or two after himself. Not only was he, even years later, well into middle age, delighted with himself over this caper, but all of the students were mightily impressed as well.

Whoa, dude! That’s soooo cooool!

In retrospect, though I did not know the term at the time, this was a perfect example of duping delight. This is the term commonly used by people in the Truth Community who make a point of analyzing the fake testimony of people in synthetic events. There are some incredible examples of duping delight in videos on YouTube. Well, fewer than there used to be, since, over the past year or so, YouTube has been making a point of scrubbing all of those videos.

One of the more famous examples is one Christine Leinonen, who, just a few days after her beloved son was gunned down in Orlando, looks strangely happy. That video segment is, unaccountably, still up on YouTube.

I remember some private email correspondence in which somebody commented that Ms. Leinonen looked absolutely exalted, more like a woman who had just got laid for the first time after a multi-year dry spell than a bereaved parent. (Come to think of it, that was me that said that…)

This delight we can take in duping others is a dark little corner of human nature and, as such, I think we all have a bit of it. For example, recently, for the fun of it, I created a virtual memorial to a non-existent person on the findagrave.com website. After doing this, I must admit that I also felt a sort of duping delight when I saw how easy this was to do!

When I wrote Ron Unz in private to bring Black Betty to his attention, he did ask the obvious question of why the 9/11 conspirators would create this Black Betty yearbook page. I have to admit that I was initially stumped by this question, but then I realized that I had never said that it was the 9/11 conspirators who had tampered with the page. Actually, I have no idea who did this! Really, I don’t. The best theory I currently have is that somebody in a position to alter text on a page replaced the name of the black girl with that of Betty Ong as a kind of little in-joke. I daresay it is hard to ignore the impish sense of humor in this “Black Betty”.

Still, that is just speculative. The answer to that question is that I have no idea who did this or why.

Now, dear reader, I went the whole 9 yards on this investigation. I looked hard for Betty. Well, now, for either Betty, the Chinese one or the Black one. Aside from the page with Black Betty, there is no other Betty Ong — black, yellow or white — in the 1973 yearbook.

If our Betty Ong was there, she certainly kept a low profile. She did not play any varsity sports, no musical instrument. She did not sing in a choir. She was not in the Spanish club or the debate club… Well, there are a lot of people like that, who just do their course work and do not participate in any extra-curricular activities, but I felt it was still worth looking.

Betty, oh, Betty… where are you?

Finally, it occurred to me that if somebody was a senior in 1973, that person would be in their junior year in 1972 and would usually appear in the 1972 yearbook as a junior.

So I scanned the 1972 yearbook. It turns out that there is no Betty Ong at all there of any color of the rainbow. However, the two people who flank Black Betty in the 1973 yearbook photo, Wayne Ogawa and Betty Ow, both appear in the 1972 yearbook. Here is the relevant page:

Here is a close-up of the relevant part of the page.

Note that there is an extra unaccounted for person, one “Oka, L.”, in between Wayne Ogawa (whose name contains a typo here) and Betty Ow. However, I finally did account for him. That is clearly Lawrence Oka, who, it turns out, graduated in Spring of 1973. He is both on the sfgenealogy.org list and in the 1973 yearbook as being part of the Spring 1973 class. I infer that, at this point, he was slated to graduate in Fall of 1973 but must have then assumed an extra heavy course load in order to graduate finally on time with the Spring 1973 class.

That is a little wrinkle, but Ogawa and Ow are exactly where one one would expect, listed as being in the class of Fall 1973 in both the 1972 and 1973 yearbooks. But what about Black Betty?

Well, on the list of the Spring 1973 graduating class in the 1972 yearbook, there is a black girl listed as “Ole, V.”. Now, I would be the first to admit that these digitized photos are pretty grainy and it is certainly hard to swear that “Ole, V.” from the 1972 yearbook is the same person as the Black Betty Ong in the 1973 yearbook. However, I think finally it must be the same person. In the intervening year, she would have changed her hair and lost some baby fat in the face.

Though I am not 100.0% certain, and it is not a sine qua non either, there are some strong indications. For one thing, “Ole, V.”, unlike the previous people, Ogawa, Oka and Ow, does not appear in the 1973 yearbook. Granted, she could have transferred to another school or dropped out entirely. Everything is possible. However, the simplest explanation is that she is in fact the black girl who is labeled as “Betty Ong” in the 1973 yearbook. Note that the surname “Ole” fits right between Ogawa and Ow and this seems like too neat to just be a coincidence.

So, this concludes the investigation of Betty Ong’s high school career. We can certainly say that Ron Unz’s conjecture proved wrong: getting one’s hands on the relevant high school yearbook certainly did not put to rest the doubts about Betty Ong. In fact, it looks quite unlikely that there was any Chinese ethnic student by the name of Betty Ong at George Washington High School in the early seventies. The one mention of a Betty Ong corresponds to the photo of a black girl, who is probably “Ole, V.” from the 1972 yearbook. Betty Ong’s name does appear on this Spring 1973 graduating list but, as I point out above, the name is pretty clearly inserted.

Not to worry, dear reader. I am looking for professional help to cure me of my Betty Ong obsession. I hope you find it in yourself to feel some sympathy for me. It is a hell of a thing to become obsessed with a figment of other people’s collective imagination. Maybe my caregiver will tell me that it is best to shift my obsession over from “Chinese Betty” to “Black Betty”. I think the latter is, at least, a real person, and she could perfectly well still be alive, though her real name is not Betty Ong, of course. And most likely, her last name is not “Ole” either. She likely married at some point and that would now be her maiden name.

Last year, I wrote a detailed article, part of which was devoted to minutely dissecting the story of a brawl in the Russian Arctic that apparently never happened. I received the criticism from various people, Ron Unz himself among them, that I had devoted a ridiculous amount of energy to debunking some insignificant little story. Well, that point may be well taken. We are so inundated with bullshit and a brawl that certainly never happened and now, a Chinese ethnic flight attendant who probably never existed maybe don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

But… to such a critique, I would say we have to start somewhere. The real goal is for people to understand, at long last, the difference between real, established facts and storytelling. When we learn that these things are not real, it should really not even come as such a surprise.

After all, there is no particular reason for a character in a fictional narrative to be real. As I recall, in some of the Sherlock Holmes stories, real historical figures, such as Queen Victoria, do make their appearance. However, that is more the exception than the rule. That Sherlock Holmes and Watson and an entire cast of less important characters are not real should surprise no one.

Thus, the flight attendant, Betty Ong, who appears in a fictional narrative we were presented shortly after 9/11/2001 could still be a real person, since a character in a fictional narrative could still be based on a real person. I am still not expressing any absolute certainty over this, and anyway, given all the absurdities and plot holes in the 9/11 narrative, one fake Chinese ethnic flight attendant is really quite minor.

I still tend to believe that there was a real person by the name of Osama Bin Laden. However, if somebody made the case that the person never even existed, I would carefully listen to the arguments. It is really not such a crazy idea. It’s mostly just storytelling, after all. Besides, what’s the difference anyway? If he didn’t exist, then they would have had to invent him!

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don’t want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

I used to work federal background investigations for a three-letter agency. I had a federal badge and creds. I uncovered a lot of fabricated biographies, identities and information. Individuals need a past. Where were they born? Where did they live? Where did they go to school? It’s hard for certain three-letter agencies to create such a fabricated past like Revusky investigated. OTOH, it’s easy for them to create recent history like the stuff you linked to. Revusky needs to do some gumshoe work now.

I am no Sherlock, but do you not find those two web pages contradictory? According to the first, Harry Ong (Betty's father) died in 2007, but in the second link he is in 2011 saying is it ten years already.

The first link says that Harry died in 2007 at the age of 85:Harry Ong, Sr Birth 1921 ChinaDeath 24 Feb 2007 (aged 85–86)

The second link:Betty Ong's family remembers9/11 A DECADE LATER Flight attendant was first to alert ground crews of hijackingBy Kevin FaganPublished 4:00 am, Sunday, September 11, 2011Harry, this time 63 years old, says"Ten years. ... I can't believe it's been 10 years," said Harry Ong, 63. "Seems like yesterday."

As for me, I rather doubt the 9/11 story and the phone calls that were made. I am not flabbergasted by this article with excellent detective work. (are you picking up these words from Thesaurus?)

... his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Bollocks. Forty year old high school yearbooks is exactly where one would go for the true antecedents of a narrative if one is to assess whether it's been doctored. I have little doubt that a hard copy would cement Jonathan's findings. IOW, we'd find black girl named V. Ole, and no Betty Ong or B. Ong.

Well, if Betty Ong isn’t listed in that 1974 high school graduation yearbook, I’ll be hugely surprised, and a serious investigation will be warranted. And if she turns out to be fictional, I’ll be *utterly* astonished, and the entire gigantic “9/11 conspiracy” might suddenly begin to collapse.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-show-must-go-on/#comment-1476576

Given Jonathan's work here adds volumes to the rather odd paucity and banality of information about her and her life, anyone who'd "be hugely surprised" by her absence in the Yearbook, and then "be *utterly* astonished" if she turned out to be fictional should be taken aback. He's well on the way to the latter. There appears to be nothing concrete about her. Nearly 3 decades before her 15 minutes of fame, she's as illusory as she is after. I'd say that, as "a serious investigation" isn't in the cards, only a running leap of faith can bring one to a real Betty Ong fit for the role she is said to have played.

The question now falls on Ron. Following Putin's words, "Do you hear us (truthers) now?"

Anyway, congratulations Jon, and good on ya! FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it's the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo. IOW, the idea that the name got replaced is probably on the money. Getting the background and lighting right on a dropped in photo would take skills I don't have, but a pro would. I guess a pro wasn't available.

Never has such a self-indulgent, rambling and pointless fantasy been spun by a guy recounting little more than a few ineffectual Google searches from his Ipad in his basement.

The film noir-style narration is particularly pathetic.

Also, note Revusky, there is nothing strange about normal humans with normal emotional ranges appearing ecstatically happy a few days after their child has been murdered. Anymore than it would be weird to see someone sob at their own wedding or birth of their child. Any non-autist can tell you this

but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too

Actually he has to convincingly show that these people exist and are indeed related to the late Ms Ong, FA on Flight 11.

"Googling" does not give you convincing access to a base reality.

Overall, this article sounds like good stuff, Fox Mulder sniffing around school yearbooks comes to mind. However it also has the Hollywood unlogic of assuming that someone would fake a call from a nonexistent flight attendant that can become a story element later instead of just faking a call from an existent flight attendant. After all at the moment of faking the call you are in deep gambit territory and your plot is highly likely to not leave any witnesses.

Well, your little ad hominem jab says a lot about your own objectivity and you spent a whole minute looking, clever you. The idea of a completely fabricated person might seem outrageous, and it does, but everything we've been told about 9/11 is outrageous, as in not believable, fabricated, fake, fraudulent.

I for one am pleased that there are people still investigating the greatest crime yet least investigated crime of my lifetime and probably yours too. Not every lead in an investigation pans out but following all leads however improbable is what is required, especially since cracking open 9/11 would lead to the necessary outcry that might just wrest America from the evil that has infiltrated and is destroying it.

I looked up the SFGate article and saw the video. It's odd that given the elaborate details connected with the woman, including pictures, there is no picture of the right person in the yearbook. All the more reason for the perps to have tried to patch up the story. Looks like Revusky might have found a loose thread that unravels the whole construction. I note the reporter, who gave his email address, is one Mr Fagan. Antisemite that I am, my thoughts turned to our Dickensian friend.

I don't have a photo in my university yearbook. I( do appear in a list of the "camera shy" towards the end of the yearbook, however. Every yearbook that I've ever seen has such a section, listing persons who, for whatever reason, did not have his picture in the yearbook. Revulsky doesn't seem to have considered this or checked it out.

Now I don’t want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman,

It is true that Revusky has at times reacted somewhat impetuously, but nothing indicates that he is a "nutcase." The article above is closely argued and its conclusions are well supported, WITHOUT exaggerated claims of certainty.

but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too,

You are missing the threshold question - how do we know that these people DO exist? Two or three paragraphs in a news account are easy to fake.

Were/are these individuals registered as voters or property owners? Where do they live? Newspapers have no difficulty finding out in a matter of days that the suspect in a sensational criminal case had an assault conviction in Oklahoma in 1994, and was divorced in South Dakota in July 2002. A sophisticated system of "credit reporting" keeps track of residence addresses etc. throughout a person's life, tied to Social Security numbers and financial records, and thus hard for individuals to fake.

The ABSENCE of more detailed reports seems suspicious. Why is there no "Betty Ong Remembered 15 Years Later" feature e.g. in the National Enquirer?

his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Perhaps "German Reader" is not aware how Gunter Guillaume was unmasked as an East German spy who worked for years in the immediate entourage of West German chancellor "Willy Brandt" (né Herbert Frahm) in the 1970s. West German security services had decided to undertake a major project of verifying the records of all refugees from East Germany who had arrived in the chaos of the early 1950s - quite an undertaking in the pre-Internet age. Guillaume's early records did not match his later claims.

(It has been suggested that Willy Brandt knew at some level that Guillaume was an East German agent, just as FDR probably understood at some level that Harry Hopkins extraordinary energy and loyalty were due to the fact that he was an agent for Stalin. Foreign agents are definition committed to advancing and protecting the position of the politicians they serve as long as possible.)

Somehow I knew (((German_reader))) would make an appearance on this thread.

ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.

AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

I used to work federal background investigations for a three-letter agency. I had a federal badge and creds. I uncovered a lot of fabricated biographies, identities and information. Individuals need a past. Where were they born? Where did they live? Where did they go to school? It’s hard for certain three-letter agencies to create such a fabricated past like Revusky investigated. OTOH, it’s easy for them to create recent history like the stuff you linked to. Revusky needs to do some gumshoe work now.

re deep state you would think they would plan for these eventualities and have yearbooks and such planted with real or fake people they can use in the future

another theory is ong is a african name and the deep state is stupid and got confused and overlaid a asian story n an african background

as for coincidence that faulty and of course the major logical fallacy of conspiracy theorists coincidences happen all the time and we wouldn't even notice them if they didnt happen in the one place that drives conspiracy nuts nuts.

that said from the perspective of the current year im pretty embarrassed about all the things i called alex jones for a decade at this point i wouldnt even be surprised if elites started pulling of their masks and revealing their lizard faces everything else is pretty much beyond question

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

I am no Sherlock, but do you not find those two web pages contradictory? According to the first, Harry Ong (Betty’s father) died in 2007, but in the second link he is in 2011 saying is it ten years already.

The first link says that Harry died in 2007 at the age of 85:
Harry Ong, Sr
Birth 1921
China
Death 24 Feb 2007 (aged 85–86)

The second link:
Betty Ong’s family remembers
9/11 A DECADE LATER Flight attendant was first to alert ground crews of hijacking
By Kevin Fagan
Published 4:00 am, Sunday, September 11, 2011
Harry, this time 63 years old, says
“Ten years. … I can’t believe it’s been 10 years,” said Harry Ong, 63. “Seems like yesterday.”

As for me, I rather doubt the 9/11 story and the phone calls that were made. I am not flabbergasted by this article with excellent detective work. (are you picking up these words from Thesaurus?)

After checking, it is not the illogical part of this story, there was such a service on this aeroplane.

In the case of the one that was likely shot down by a fighter jet (and claimed to have been brought down by passengers overpowering the hijackers), the official narrative includes cellular-phone calls, not technically possible.

For Linh via Jonathon, disappointed that I was not able to be there on Thu., did send e-mail, but know how these mini-package tours within east Asia work (very brief).

Had put some thought into odd (almost or completely) tourist-free areas near or in Tokyo, timing, too bad.

Jonathon, I now know what is the meaning of 'gaslight' as a verb. Thx.

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

… his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Bollocks.
Forty year old high school yearbooks is exactly where one would go for the true antecedents of a narrative if one is to assess whether it’s been doctored. I have little doubt that a hard copy would cement Jonathan’s findings. IOW, we’d find black girl named V. Ole, and no Betty Ong or B. Ong.

Well, if Betty Ong isn’t listed in that 1974 high school graduation yearbook, I’ll be hugely surprised, and a serious investigation will be warranted. And if she turns out to be fictional, I’ll be *utterly* astonished, and the entire gigantic “9/11 conspiracy” might suddenly begin to collapse.

Given Jonathan’s work here adds volumes to the rather odd paucity and banality of information about her and her life, anyone who’d “be hugely surprised” by her absence in the Yearbook, and then “be *utterly* astonished” if she turned out to be fictional should be taken aback. He’s well on the way to the latter. There appears to be nothing concrete about her. Nearly 3 decades before her 15 minutes of fame, she’s as illusory as she is after.
I’d say that, as “a serious investigation” isn’t in the cards, only a running leap of faith can bring one to a real Betty Ong fit for the role she is said to have played.

The question now falls on Ron. Following Putin’s words, “Do you hear us (truthers) now?”

Anyway, congratulations Jon, and good on ya!
FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.
IOW, the idea that the name got replaced is probably on the money. Getting the background and lighting right on a dropped in photo would take skills I don’t have, but a pro would. I guess a pro wasn’t available.

Well, you saw the visible part of the iceberg. In private correspondence, Ron expressed such confidence that the high school yearbook would clear up the question that he wagered $10,000 on this. That, specifically, is why I finally never dropped the question! Because, really, the whole 9/11 thing for anybody who is moderately awake and aware is already such a fraud and an imposture that an extra fake stewardess more or less hardly matters.

But, you know, as you point out, Ron was turning this into some big hairy deal in public. And later, in private, he was so confident about this that he wagered $10K!

Of course, if that had been anybody in the 99% of the population for whom that is a lot of money, then I could have easily dropped the matter. One could take it as being a figure of speech, equivalent to somebody saying in a moment of agitation: "If Betty Ong is not in the yearbook, I'll eat my hat!"

And there's also this matter that Ron was intermittently using this Betty Ong matter as some sort of rhetorical club to beat me over the head with. "Revusky is so crazy that he thinks Betty Ong is not a real person, ya dee da." And, really, that kind of thing does get pretty tiresome. So when you add into the whole issue that Ron was being such a total dick over this, I feel that I should obviously hold him to his end.

But, anyway, to be clear, the $10,000 wager was not about me proving that Betty Ong never existed. That's obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult. The wager was solely about the high school yearbook. He clearly lost the wager.

In case anybody's wondering (I guess they would be...) Ron has not reached the "acceptance phase" on having lost the wager though. In private email, he seems to be clinging to the idea that somebody here is going to make some miraculous discovery that saves the day -- maybe like the person claiming that this "Betty Ng" is really Betty Ong. But that's a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That's not the same person. And obviously, it is quite unlikely that the girl's name was misspelt in exactly the same way in two (or possibly more) consecutive yearbooks.

FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

Now, to be clear, figuring out who "Black Betty" is, that's not any absolute requirement anyway. If V. Ole from the 1972 yearbook is the same person who is labeled "Betty Ong" in the 1973 yearbook, then that's kind of like the maraschino cherry on top of the whip cream on top of the sundae.

Obviously, the black girl labeled as "Betty Ong" cannot possibly be the same person as the Chinese ethnic flight attendant who (allegedly) made the phone call on 9/11 -- whoever she is... My current guess is that "Black Betty" is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text. Without that little in-joke, there is no Betty Ong anywhere. But again, there is no onus on me to demonstrate anything about who did this or why. The wager was solely about whether the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the question of Betty Ong's existence.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either! I didn't even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people are all just crisis actors.

Oh dear! As one who takes yourself so seriously, with a damn good third class mind, aren't you thoroughly embarrassed at having effectually endorsed Revusky's skimpily inadequate researches - about 10 per cent of what was needed and that's without counting his lack of imagination about the name being Ng?

One cannot make phone calls with a mobile phone from a passenger plane, as MH370 demonstrated.
The second pilot tried to use his phone, made contact, but when he began to speak the plane already was too far from the ground antennae.
The software is too slow, it functions with cars and trains.

In the Hollywood movie over the Pennsylvania plane, that never crashed there, according to the coroner it ‘atomised’ in the air, therefore the inflight phones were used.

Then the question how the fake phone conversations could be, well, long before Sept 11 the USA already had voice cloning sofware, the software makes it possible after just a short time of recording of any voice, to construct any message.

Rubbish. Apart from arrangements to provide for use of mobile phones and internet on long distance flights in recent years there is every likelihood of being close enough to a transmission tower in the NE of the US.

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

“Research” lol.

Never has such a self-indulgent, rambling and pointless fantasy been spun by a guy recounting little more than a few ineffectual Google searches from his Ipad in his basement.

The film noir-style narration is particularly pathetic.

Also, note Revusky, there is nothing strange about normal humans with normal emotional ranges appearing ecstatically happy a few days after their child has been murdered. Anymore than it would be weird to see someone sob at their own wedding or birth of their child. Any non-autist can tell you this

You are an idiot. Tears of joy at a happy event are one thing. But no normal person laughs after the death (traumatic or otherwise) of a loved one, much less launch in public policy talking points, as seems to happen after all of these events.

If you are not on anti-psychotic meds, you should begin taking them. If you are on anti-psychotic meds, you should immediately stop taking them.

Michelle Malkin’s blabberwith is more relevant than your “I myself” misadled sloppiness. In fact, Trump makes more sense than you. By the way my one really born in Ireland Irish friend adopted a child from Asia (so you can understand, the child is actually an asian) and the rest you can try to imagine.

You must be a project of Ron’s (a Columbia graduate crack head in rehab type project) for him to put your nuttiness to this site.

This will trip your wire, if 911 was a false flag operation, and Betty Ong “hersef” does not exist, why?

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, ( This well appointed Suite http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid3.htm according to the London Times): nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah…

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes…

And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defense system the slip…

Unfazed by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely…

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two… and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground… only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI…

…Meanwhile down in Washington…

Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked 2-man Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a Boeing…

Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little…

Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the world’s most heavily defended building…

…all without a single shot being fired…. or ruining the nicely mowed lawn… and all at a speed just too fast to capture on video…

…Later, in the skies above Pennsylvania…

So desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that otherwise would not be possible until several years later…

And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, it crashes into a Shankesville field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants… except for the standard issue Muslim terrorists bandana…

…Further south in Florida…

President Bush, our brave Commander-in-Chief continues to read “My Pet Goat” to a class full of primary school children… shrugging off the obvious possibility that his life could be in imminent danger…

…In New York…

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously…

While back in Washington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz shake their heads in disbelief at their own luck in getting the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ catalyzing event they so desired to pursue their agenda of world domination…

And finally, not to be disturbed too much by reports of their own deaths, at least seven of our nineteen suicide hijackers turn up alive and kicking in mainstream media reports…

I am no Sherlock, but do you not find those two web pages contradictory? According to the first, Harry Ong (Betty's father) died in 2007, but in the second link he is in 2011 saying is it ten years already.

The first link says that Harry died in 2007 at the age of 85:Harry Ong, Sr Birth 1921 ChinaDeath 24 Feb 2007 (aged 85–86)

The second link:Betty Ong's family remembers9/11 A DECADE LATER Flight attendant was first to alert ground crews of hijackingBy Kevin FaganPublished 4:00 am, Sunday, September 11, 2011Harry, this time 63 years old, says"Ten years. ... I can't believe it's been 10 years," said Harry Ong, 63. "Seems like yesterday."

As for me, I rather doubt the 9/11 story and the phone calls that were made. I am not flabbergasted by this article with excellent detective work. (are you picking up these words from Thesaurus?)

My error, the second is Harry Jr. Should read to the end. Betty Ong belonging to this family must have lived and had a childhood, but…

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too

Actually he has to convincingly show that these people exist and are indeed related to the late Ms Ong, FA on Flight 11.

“Googling” does not give you convincing access to a base reality.

Overall, this article sounds like good stuff, Fox Mulder sniffing around school yearbooks comes to mind. However it also has the Hollywood unlogic of assuming that someone would fake a call from a nonexistent flight attendant that can become a story element later instead of just faking a call from an existent flight attendant. After all at the moment of faking the call you are in deep gambit territory and your plot is highly likely to not leave any witnesses.

However it also has the Hollywood unlogic of assuming that someone would fake a call from a nonexistent flight attendant that can become a story element later instead of just faking a call from an existent flight attendant. After all at the moment of faking the call you are in deep gambit territory and your plot is highly likely to not leave any witnesses.

You are asumming that the 911 conspirators would be perfectly logical and not make theses kind of mistakes. Besides, when you don't fear prosecution you won't be as circumspect as someone who does know matter how smart you are. Being on the inside looking out changes perspective.

It wasn't logical, or didn't to a truther for the 911 conspirators to have some "random " guy give a detailed account of how the twin towers collapsed("mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense") within minutes when it took NIST months to supposedly come to the conclusion that is was fire. Wouldn't people how he knew so fast? Some did actually, but not the people who are in a position to dispense justice.

1. In this video there is actually a man in a black suit that says "yeah" ending the interview.

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Well, your little ad hominem jab says a lot about your own objectivity and you spent a whole minute looking, clever you. The idea of a completely fabricated person might seem outrageous, and it does, but everything we’ve been told about 9/11 is outrageous, as in not believable, fabricated, fake, fraudulent.

I for one am pleased that there are people still investigating the greatest crime yet least investigated crime of my lifetime and probably yours too. Not every lead in an investigation pans out but following all leads however improbable is what is required, especially since cracking open 9/11 would lead to the necessary outcry that might just wrest America from the evil that has infiltrated and is destroying it.

If anyone knows what happened on 911 it is Donald Trump. There was a YouTube clip of him interviewed a day or so after 911 in which he says quite honestly, 'there must have been something else to destroy those 'powerful buildings'. The clip may still be there. Trump, a NY real estate mogul, would have known all about the white elephants that were the WTC Towers. He would have known large parts of them had been standing empty for yonks.

He may also have known that in 1989 a firm of consulting Architects were commissioned by the Port Authority to estimate the costs of demolishing them. During this inspection they found the buildings riddled with 'Galvanic corrosion', which they reported would cause windows to fall out on to the streets below. They estimated (in 1989) the buildings had about 12 years to go before that began.

If he did know this, Mr Trump would certainly have been puzzled to see a fellow NY Real estate mogul buy the complex as he did. All would have been clearly understood when the two planes crashed into two buildings causing the destruction of ALL SEVEN buildings in the WTC complex, while the INK hardly had time to dry on the new owners multi-billion dollar insurance arrangements.

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name. You can find her in the yearbook link below on the right-hand page 3rd in from the right. She also looks the same, only like a nerdy awkward girl who then later worked out how to be pretty.

Well, Jonathan, it never hurts to wonder about certain things, speaking of them is possibly another matter. I’m surprised it didn’t cross your mind the possibility Black Betty Ong did indeed exist but someone in the ‘story telling department’ wasn’t paying attention and assumed she was Asian (I don’t ascribe to this, I’ve no idea wtf is going on with ‘betty’.)

Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, Francesco Cossiga, has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy’s most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.

Cossiga was elected President of Italian Senate in July 1983 before being winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.

Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed – an honest politician – and led the country for seven years until April 1992.

Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio – a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.

Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they coined “false flag operations,” terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.

Cossiga’s revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus.

In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

Cossiga’s new revelations appeared last week in Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.

“[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe … now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley’s book as stating that “The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals – he can’t be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.a

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

I looked up the SFGate article and saw the video. It’s odd that given the elaborate details connected with the woman, including pictures, there is no picture of the right person in the yearbook. All the more reason for the perps to have tried to patch up the story. Looks like Revusky might have found a loose thread that unravels the whole construction. I note the reporter, who gave his email address, is one Mr Fagan. Antisemite that I am, my thoughts turned to our Dickensian friend.

I just googled findagrave.com The grave is Betty Ong’s father. On second reading, I note his epitaph starts with a paragraph only about hero Betty in 911. It seems a tag. There is also a photograph of Betty. A family photograph appears to have young Betty at the back end. She appears to be missing an arm. I am not of course assuming anything.

The surname is sometimes romanized as Ang, Eng, Ing and Ong in the United States and Ung in Australia.

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name. You can find her in the yearbook link below on the right-hand page 3rd in from the right. She also looks the same, only like a nerdy awkward girl who then later worked out how to be pretty.

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name.

Well, that is not accurate. They potentially can be, but usually are not. In any case, the above is really sophistry. For instance, Miller and Müller are the same surnames etymologically, and, at key moments in history, apparently a lot of Americans who were Müller decided to spell their names Miller. However, from the point of view of documentation, they really are two different surnames.

Now, somebody who was christened Juan or Giovanni might try to fit in and go by the English version John, sure. But family names don't work that way. Once a family decides to spell their family name one way, they are typically quite consistent about it and there is simply no sign that the Ong family ever spelled their surname any differently from "Ong". This is just an exercise in clutching at straws.

Of course, a name could still be misspelt by accident. However, "Betty Ng" appears in both the 1973 and the 1974 yearbooks by that name. For your theory to be correct, her last name would have to be misspelt both years consecutively in exactly the same way. This is really very unlikely.

She also looks the same,

LOL.

Well, that is just a ridiculous statement. In fact, simply looking at the photo of Betty Ng, it is quite clear that this is a completely different person. The nose and face are all different. It is not really even close.

Interestingly, somebody (who?) put the Betty Ng photo from the 1974 yearbook on the findagrave.com memorial for Betty Ong. That is right here:

Most likely, V. Ole is the "Black Betty", whose picture is out of order.

As the misspelling of "Ogawa" shows (and a casual glance at most journalism shows), editors and journalists make mistakes all the time. It is a mistake for the rest of us to parse their work as if it were scripture with hidden meanings.

And once again Revusky is shown to be a total loon.
I was indeed being generous when I referred to his "research".
Thanks to you and to "anonymous [307]"!
Hopefully this will be the last time Ron Unz runs one of Revusky's embarrassing screeds.

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Are you 12 years old lol?

So much faith you have in something digital that can EASILY be fabricated.

I looked up the SFGate article and saw the video. It's odd that given the elaborate details connected with the woman, including pictures, there is no picture of the right person in the yearbook. All the more reason for the perps to have tried to patch up the story. Looks like Revusky might have found a loose thread that unravels the whole construction. I note the reporter, who gave his email address, is one Mr Fagan. Antisemite that I am, my thoughts turned to our Dickensian friend.

Looks like Revusky might have found a loose thread that unravels the whole construction.

Only one??? There’s so many loose threads it’s insane that it still holds water in some people’s eyes.

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name. You can find her in the yearbook link below on the right-hand page 3rd in from the right. She also looks the same, only like a nerdy awkward girl who then later worked out how to be pretty.

https://m.imgur.com/fOmbhdj?r

Betty Ong was Betty Ng…

That blows my theory out of the water, that on picture day Betty was at home playing her violin and studying for the SAT. RIP Betty.

To the author,
This is great work. Many authors simply list facts (which could be mis-information or dis-information). You carried us through your reasoning process like in an interesting dective story. You even added parts where you weren’t absolutely sure of your conclusions on Betty Ong, but that you sought out the most probable ones.
Ron Unz should also be given creeps for asking you the right questions to lead you in the right directions of further research and thinking.
Only downsides are length of this article… and in your previous article replies to obnoxious commenters, you used vulgarity
Stick with the excellent vocabulary you have in your journalistic toolbox…and write more for us.

I am no Sherlock, but do you not find those two web pages contradictory? According to the first, Harry Ong (Betty's father) died in 2007, but in the second link he is in 2011 saying is it ten years already.

The first link says that Harry died in 2007 at the age of 85:Harry Ong, Sr Birth 1921 ChinaDeath 24 Feb 2007 (aged 85–86)

The second link:Betty Ong's family remembers9/11 A DECADE LATER Flight attendant was first to alert ground crews of hijackingBy Kevin FaganPublished 4:00 am, Sunday, September 11, 2011Harry, this time 63 years old, says"Ten years. ... I can't believe it's been 10 years," said Harry Ong, 63. "Seems like yesterday."

As for me, I rather doubt the 9/11 story and the phone calls that were made. I am not flabbergasted by this article with excellent detective work. (are you picking up these words from Thesaurus?)

Jonathon’s article is interesting, as are some of the rebuttals.

I was suspicious about the phone call, too.

After checking, it is not the illogical part of this story, there was such a service on this aeroplane.

In the case of the one that was likely shot down by a fighter jet (and claimed to have been brought down by passengers overpowering the hijackers), the official narrative includes cellular-phone calls, not technically possible.

For Linh via Jonathon, disappointed that I was not able to be there on Thu., did send e-mail, but know how these mini-package tours within east Asia work (very brief).

Had put some thought into odd (almost or completely) tourist-free areas near or in Tokyo, timing, too bad.

Jonathon, I now know what is the meaning of ‘gaslight’ as a verb. Thx.

To the author,
This is great work. Many authors simply list facts (which could be mis-information or dis-information). You carried us through your reasoning process like in an interesting dective story. You even added parts where you weren't absolutely sure of your conclusions on Betty Ong, but that you sought out the most probable ones.
Ron Unz should also be given creeps for asking you the right questions to lead you in the right directions of further research and thinking.
Only downsides are length of this article... and in your previous article replies to obnoxious commenters, you used vulgarity
Stick with the excellent vocabulary you have in your journalistic toolbox...and write more for us.

To the author,
This is great work.

Thank you.

in your previous article replies to obnoxious commenters, you used vulgarity

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name. You can find her in the yearbook link below on the right-hand page 3rd in from the right. She also looks the same, only like a nerdy awkward girl who then later worked out how to be pretty.

https://m.imgur.com/fOmbhdj?r

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name.

Well, that is not accurate. They potentially can be, but usually are not. In any case, the above is really sophistry. For instance, Miller and Müller are the same surnames etymologically, and, at key moments in history, apparently a lot of Americans who were Müller decided to spell their names Miller. However, from the point of view of documentation, they really are two different surnames.

Now, somebody who was christened Juan or Giovanni might try to fit in and go by the English version John, sure. But family names don’t work that way. Once a family decides to spell their family name one way, they are typically quite consistent about it and there is simply no sign that the Ong family ever spelled their surname any differently from “Ong”. This is just an exercise in clutching at straws.

Of course, a name could still be misspelt by accident. However, “Betty Ng” appears in both the 1973 and the 1974 yearbooks by that name. For your theory to be correct, her last name would have to be misspelt both years consecutively in exactly the same way. This is really very unlikely.

She also looks the same,

LOL.

Well, that is just a ridiculous statement. In fact, simply looking at the photo of Betty Ng, it is quite clear that this is a completely different person. The nose and face are all different. It is not really even close.

Interestingly, somebody (who?) put the Betty Ng photo from the 1974 yearbook on the findagrave.com memorial for Betty Ong. That is right here:

I don’t think this will persuade you as you seem to be the sort of person who will believe whatever they want to believe, the force of contradictory reality notwithstanding. But you mention that once a family decides on a spelling they’re pretty consistent with it. Well, not always.

Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers. (Many will adopt traditional English names over their birth names in later life. Less common, though not unheard of, is changing the spelling to emphasize its ethnic character.) And it isn’t uncommon for them to change around the spelling of their surnames either. This may be done by the family as a whole or, as occurs more often, by a single member. In fact, I actually knew a girl in high school who changed the spelling of her surname from “Ong” to “Ng” when she went from her sophomore to junior year.

As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

What I don’t understand about these sort of conspiracies is the way their adherents view government agencies like the CIA and FBI. They’re sophisticated and all-powerful, yet simultaneously careless, leaving behind all manner of loose ends that somehow only people of dubious intellect and literary ability can somehow discern.

As an aside, I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine. Therefore, the “falsity” of these calls must not be as obvious or plain as believed.

I had a friend in college who was obviously chinese but had a korean last name because immigration messed up her family name when her parents came to the US. She decided to change it back later. I don't know if this is what Betty did but my yearbook has a similar inconsistency because of it.

As for family names. The spelling of my family name has changed 3 time in the past 200 years. I tracked it through census, marriage and death records, personal correspondence etc. My grandfather was the last person who changed it so it is pretty unusual, but I wouldn't qualify it as an impossibility.

Discounting these possibilities out of hand doesn't strengthen your argument that Betty is a fictitious person.

Interesting that most of the photos of “Betty” on findagrave.com were added in 2017, 16 years after she died, by someone going by “paradise965.” Clicking over to paradise965’s profile on the site, I see they’ve added 81 (!) memorials on the site:

https://www.findagrave.com/user/48815958/memorial?type=added

Just a casual perusal of this list shows that not only has this person added a bunch of photos of “Betty”, but also has added memorials for victims of:

I agree that 9/11 was a false flag operation but I cannot agree with most of the rest of your comment. Dr Judy Wood was interviewed by Dr Greg Jenkins, resulting in one of the the most unimpressive interviews in world history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8

I was actually interested in what Judy Wood might have to say but after watching this display of clueless bumbling evasion, I was more than half convinced that Judy Wood was herself perpetrating a a false flag operation, an exercise in misdirection intended to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Only one of the people in the interview sounds even remotely like a scientist, and it isn't Judy Wood. It is also notable that totally unlike Dr Steven Jones, Judy wood did not lose her job (at least when last I heard)

If anybody can watch this video and find her performance even vaguely convincing, I would be astonished.

A false flag troll is a troll who pretends to be a member of a group he doesn't belong to or have views he doesn't subscribe to in order to put a group or a view in the worst light possible or to simply misrepresent that group or view to others.

...somethimes people say things so silly that they merly appear to be ff trolls.

Almost certainly, Betty Ong IS Betty Ng and your dismissiveness of that fact demonstrates your conceit and ignorance.

Many people have narcissistic tendencies, but not many have the true personality disorder. Unfortunately, based on this episode as well as your past responses to commentators, you are one of the latter. You have a bit of a knack for writing, but it is my impression that you believe you are much more intelligent than your readers think you are.

I'm trying to understand why Ron Unz accepted any more of your articles. My best guess is that you are a sort of a lightning rod. I think your stuff would be better suited to a site like Infowars.

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name. You can find her in the yearbook link below on the right-hand page 3rd in from the right. She also looks the same, only like a nerdy awkward girl who then later worked out how to be pretty.

https://m.imgur.com/fOmbhdj?r

Nailed it.

Most likely, V. Ole is the “Black Betty”, whose picture is out of order.

As the misspelling of “Ogawa” shows (and a casual glance at most journalism shows), editors and journalists make mistakes all the time. It is a mistake for the rest of us to parse their work as if it were scripture with hidden meanings.

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Thank you for posting that. As near as I can see Betty Ann Ong does have some sort of backstory that can be verified. There may be an explanation for the year book discrepancy.

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name. You can find her in the yearbook link below on the right-hand page 3rd in from the right. She also looks the same, only like a nerdy awkward girl who then later worked out how to be pretty.

https://m.imgur.com/fOmbhdj?r

Well, that is just a guess though. It is another angle that needs to be investigated, but your drawing a conclusion that is pure speculation with no research done.

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Good points German Reader. There are a lot of readers and some authors here with loose screws in their heads.

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name. You can find her in the yearbook link below on the right-hand page 3rd in from the right. She also looks the same, only like a nerdy awkward girl who then later worked out how to be pretty.

https://m.imgur.com/fOmbhdj?r

It may be that the family (or some of them) decided later to change the spelling of their last name from Ng to Ong.

Ng is awkward because most people in the U.S. would expect to see a vowel in a last name.

Serious, do some research , for instance John Lear the son of William Lear of the Lear Jet, explains why no planes hit the WTC twin towers, and Dr. Judy Wood explains how the WTC twin towers steel dissipated with virtually nothing remaining via directed energy weapons.

Do a search on April Gallup a pentagon employee who walked out through the hole in the pentagon, there was neither a plane nor a missile involved , it was a prewired explosion. There is a lot more to investigate if you want the truth and Israel and the ziocons did it.

As in all the deep state false flags, none dare call it conspiracy, call it the truth.

Someone has certainly gone to a lot of trouble to conjure out of nothing this “ostensible” family.

Harry Ong, Sr. Passed away peacefully at home on Feb. 24, with his loving family by his side. Harry Sr., 86, was the beloved husband of Yee Gum Oy, and would have been married 59 years in March. Loving father to Harry Jr. and Dorothy Ong,Cathie Ann and Edward Herrera, Gloria Ann Ong-Woo, and Betty Ann Ong, [!!!] who predeceased him. Cherished grandfather to Dean and Kameron Joelson, Matthew Ong, Lauren Woo and Austin Woo. Also survived by many loving families and friends and will be greatly missed by all. Relatives and friends are cordially invited to attend a Visitation on March 9 from 6pm to 8pm, and Funeral on March 10 at 10am, both at the Tiffany Chapel at Cypress Lawn Funeral Home, 1370 El Camino Real, Colma, CA. Interment , Cypress Lawn Cemetery in Colma, CA. The family would also like to thank Dr. Bertrand Tuan and the wonderful staff of Pacific Hematology Oncology, San Francisco, CA. In lieu of flowers, donations would be sincerely appreciated for the Betty Ann Ong Foundation, P.O. Box 1108, Bakersfield, CA 93302.

Published in San Francisco Chronicle from Mar. 4 to Mar. 5, 2007

If Betty Ann Ong didn’t exist, then none of these other people could exist either, since they all are (or were) in a position to confirm her existence.

Massive operations by secret service organizations are typically protected by MULTIPLE LEVELS of misdirection.

For example, it is quite conceivable that there was an actual Betty Ong who was murdered on or around 9/11, but she went to a different school, or grew up in another city. The reference to a specific high school (and the "Black Betty" shenanigans) would be intentionally set up to create confusion.

Alternatively, of course, there never was a "Betty Ong" and the later evidence is designed to mislead researchers into believing that they are tantalizingly close to the solution where they are actually on a wild goose chase.

Also, did Betty Ong’s parents own the store on Jackson Street where they supposedly worked? If so, property records should still be readily available.

Well, sure, it's of interest to figure out what elements of the story do check out. However, I do hope you understand that the existence of the grocery store on Jackson Street where Betty supposedly worked would no more prove that she is real than the existence of 221 Baker Street in London where Sherlock Holmes supposedly lived proves that individual's existence.

The below article leads one to assume that Betty Ong is not the 1st person to have been created by the Deep State.

“I taught at Columbia for 46 years,” Graff told Root. “I taught every significant American politician that ever studied at Columbia. I know them all. I’m proud of them all. Between American History and Diplomatic History, one way or another, they all had to come through my classes. Not Obama. I never had a student with that name in any of my classes. I never met him, never saw him, never heard of him.”
Graff further added that none of his colleagues remembered Obama either. He said he was upset that Obama was called “the first President of the United States from Columbia University.”
The former university professor further cast doubt on Obama’s presence at Columbia in an interview with WND and said, “Nobody I knew at Columbia ever remembers Obama being there.”

It's more accurate to state that the article tells the side of the story that includes the words of Professor Graff, then goes on to claim that Obama did indeed attend Columbia and that this and other Obama "conspiracies" have all been debunked, etc.

Serious, do some research , for instance John Lear the son of William Lear of the Lear Jet, explains why no planes hit the WTC twin towers, and Dr. Judy Wood explains how the WTC twin towers steel dissipated with virtually nothing remaining via directed energy weapons.

Do a search on April Gallup a pentagon employee who walked out through the hole in the pentagon, there was neither a plane nor a missile involved , it was a prewired explosion. There is a lot more to investigate if you want the truth and Israel and the ziocons did it.

As in all the deep state false flags, none dare call it conspiracy, call it the truth.

The picture of the initial 20' diameter hole in the Pentagon facade is still available on the internet. Supposedly it was caused by a low flying 757 striking the facade. So what happened to the wings, engines, fin, rudder, stab, elevators which could not possibly have fit through the hole? Where is the metal debris which should be plastered and sprinkled everywhere? Where are the cadavers and personal belongings? This is what full spectrum dominance and total information awareness looks like domestically........

The crisis actors meme became quite popular among Youtube Yahoos (also called falseflaggots) who after every terrorist or mass shooting event end up searching for the crisis actors in available video footages. Usually it takes them just few hours after an event to proclaim that they found some crisis actors. The alleged crisis actors often will be the only “evidence” they will have “proving” the “falseflagginess” or “hoaxness” of the event.

The Youtube Yahoos base their conclusions on their idea how people should or should not express or act out their emotions like in the case of Christine Leinonen who according to Youtube Yahoos did not express her grief according to Youtube Yahoos’ idea about grief manifestation.

Where do the Youtube Yahoos get their idea how grief is expressed and manifested? Obviously from movies, sitcoms and soaps where these emotions are countlessly acted by actual actors who learned to act them based on other actors not the reality, extreme method actors excepted who may go to funerals to observe people. The emotion of grief for any singular person is rare and any person has only few occasions in her lifetime to observe them in reality while she sees them all the time in the virtual reality acted by actors. If you watch TV you can see it several times a day.

Basically what Revusky is telling us is that Christine Leinonen did not act as actresses he saw in the movies and soaps on TV. He claims that Christine Leinonen acted artificially unlike the actresses on TV.

Revusky, when you watch your favorite soap try to keep in mind that what you see is not real. I know it might be hard for somebody who is consumed by his favorite soap but it is prerequisite for somebody who tries to parse the surrounding reality.

'prerequisite for somebody who tries to parse the surrounding reality'

Sure, it's such a hard reality most people live--supplied by television and ACTUAL Yahoo!, not your trolling attempt at belittling thoughtful people by calling them 'yahoos', a la the CIA term 'Conspiracy Theorist'.No one with a brain would give you a second thought.

The Youtube Yahoos base their conclusions on their idea how people should or should not express or act out their emotions

Are you any different? Other than you've judged them the same way and reached the opposite conclusion?

Besides, you can not tell me that Robby Parker from the Sandy Hook 'shooting' was not putting it on. Just go watch the footage on YT. The guy went from ear to ear grinning and chumming it up with someone while he thought no one was filming, to delivering a sob-filled speech about the loss of his child the second the news cameras were rolling. All over the course of about 10 seconds.

But no, better to just debase yourself in true left wing fashion by simply slandering everyone you disagree with. It works great for the MSM, after all?

The alleged crisis actors often will be the only “evidence” they will have “proving” the “falseflagginess” or “hoaxness” of the event.

Often? Only? Calling BS on that. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the exact opposite is the actual truth. More often than not, crisis actors are one accusation on a veritable laundry list of perceived inconsistencies or suspicious behavior.

Say what you will about whether or not the rest of what they have to submit ever seems any more or less credible than the crisis actor accusations, the point is that such claims are rarely more than one small facet of a much broader list of inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances being discussed and never the crux of all the entire false flag narrative.

Hey, Utu, you schmuck, it's not just me and a handful of "conspiracy whackos" who think that this Leinonen woman is fake. Just go to the youtube page itself and scan through some of the comments. And note that this is CNN's youtube channel, so it attracts a large mainstream audience. And nobody is buying this. The video has 375 Likes and 997 dislikes. (Obviously the 375 who like this shit are compulsive shit eaters like you, but they seem to be outnumbered!)

Sample comments:

Probably shouldn't hire your crisis actors from Craigslist...﻿

Did her handlers teach her how to cry yet?﻿

Her son just got murdered and she's smiling? Horrible acting ma'am﻿

Are people really so disconnected from normal human emotions that they think this woman is genuine? No red, swollen eyes, no red nose from blowing it - no distress. No sign of grieving - all happy happy smiles and jovial chit chat.﻿

Is she having a orgasm while touching Anderson's hand because she smiling the whole time﻿

Another mother smiling after her hearing about her son's "death," okay so now we know they script these emotions. Hoax.﻿

These are typical ones taken from the top of the feed. There's literally hundreds more where the above came from.

The attack on 911 was done by Israel and the deep state ziocons and no planes were used only holograms of planes, the WTC was hit with directed energy weapons and 7 WTC buildings were destroyed.

The pentagon was a preplanted charge ie no plane or missile hit the pentagon.

Check Dr. Judy Wood.com for details and check the youtube videos the John Lear.

I agree that 9/11 was a false flag operation but I cannot agree with most of the rest of your comment. Dr Judy Wood was interviewed by Dr Greg Jenkins, resulting in one of the the most unimpressive interviews in world history.

I was actually interested in what Judy Wood might have to say but after watching this display of clueless bumbling evasion, I was more than half convinced that Judy Wood was herself perpetrating a a false flag operation, an exercise in misdirection intended to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Only one of the people in the interview sounds even remotely like a scientist, and it isn’t Judy Wood. It is also notable that totally unlike Dr Steven Jones, Judy wood did not lose her job (at least when last I heard)

If anybody can watch this video and find her performance even vaguely convincing, I would be astonished.

Recommend the book Alice In Wonderland and the World Trade Center by David Icke , can be had on amazon.com, and check the archives at Henrymakow.com, and Rense.com and Whatreallyhappened.com, and Veteranstoday.com, and David Icke.com, etc., etc., the truth is out there.

I know very little about metallurgy but I am curious to know how steel below ground level of WTC 1 & 2 can remain liquid hot and run "as in a foundry" for over a month after the event. I try not to speculate on the details of 9/11 believing that the first order of business is to show that it absolutely did NOT happen as was widely reported, then and now. A proper investigation was never conducted and much has been covered up. This needs to be addressed.

The below article leads one to assume that Betty Ong is not the 1st person to have been created by the Deep State.

“I taught at Columbia for 46 years,” Graff told Root. “I taught every significant American politician that ever studied at Columbia. I know them all. I’m proud of them all. Between American History and Diplomatic History, one way or another, they all had to come through my classes. Not Obama. I never had a student with that name in any of my classes. I never met him, never saw him, never heard of him.”
Graff further added that none of his colleagues remembered Obama either. He said he was upset that Obama was called “the first President of the United States from Columbia University.”
The former university professor further cast doubt on Obama’s presence at Columbia in an interview with WND and said, “Nobody I knew at Columbia ever remembers Obama being there.”

It’s more accurate to state that the article tells the side of the story that includes the words of Professor Graff, then goes on to claim that Obama did indeed attend Columbia and that this and other Obama “conspiracies” have all been debunked, etc.

But, it’s the second thing you really need to know about Obama at Columbia. He says he graduated Class of ’83. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Well then Obama had to attend the same Political Science classes as me and I can tell you, almost to a man, my classmates in the Class of ’83 proudly called themselves Marxist, communist or socialist. They bragged of being radical like a badge of honor.

In my class the typical Columbia political science student vowed to destroy capitalism, bankrupt business owners, and vaporize what they called “the white power structure.” For the most part these were spoiled brat white students of privilege and power. They were children of wealth, given everything on a silver platter and all they felt was anger and guilt. Their goal was to destroy their own fathers. They talked about it all day long.

So let me tell you a story. Back in 1981 I was sitting in a political science class. The president at the time was Ronald Reagan, a man reviled by the left just as viciously as any Republican is today. Suddenly our lecture was interrupted by a door swinging open violently—whereupon a breathless fellow student raced into the room screaming, “The president has been shot! They’ve just assassinated President Reagan.”

Ronald Reagan was my hero. The news hit me like a ton of bricks. I instantly felt sick to my stomach, and tears flowed down my cheeks. But it was the response of the rest of the class that I will remember for the rest of my life. They cheered. They clapped, they yelled, they high-fived, and whooped in sheer unadulterated joy. My fellow classmates, the ones I was naively trying so hard to befriend despite their radical leftist views, were HAPPY that my hero President Ronald Reagan was dead (or so they thought). They were celebrating what they thought was the assassination of America’s president.

Incidentally, if Obama actually went to Columbia, he’d almost certainly have to have been in that class leading the cheers. Feel like you need a shower yet? Lest you think I’m exaggerating, British leftists just celebrated and cheered upon hearing of the death of Margaret Thatcher only days ago.

But wait, the most frightening and eye-opening is still to come. You see political science students at Columbia were taught a detailed plan designed by two former Columbia professors named Cloward & Piven to bring down “the system,” destroy capitalism, and turn America into a socialist state. We discussed it in class, wrote about it, and debated it outside class. It was our #1 topic for four years.

Folks, this is Cloward & Piven. This is Karl Marx, who despised the middle class and vowed to wipe it out. This is Saul Alinsky (Obama’s mentor) who dedicated his book (Obama’s favorite book) to Lucifer, the devil.

That's true, I've got a copy of "Rules for Radicals":

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all out legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name. You can find her in the yearbook link below on the right-hand page 3rd in from the right. She also looks the same, only like a nerdy awkward girl who then later worked out how to be pretty.

https://m.imgur.com/fOmbhdj?r

And once again Revusky is shown to be a total loon.
I was indeed being generous when I referred to his “research”.
Thanks to you and to “anonymous [307]“!
Hopefully this will be the last time Ron Unz runs one of Revusky’s embarrassing screeds.

I agree that 9/11 was a false flag operation but I cannot agree with most of the rest of your comment. Dr Judy Wood was interviewed by Dr Greg Jenkins, resulting in one of the the most unimpressive interviews in world history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8

I was actually interested in what Judy Wood might have to say but after watching this display of clueless bumbling evasion, I was more than half convinced that Judy Wood was herself perpetrating a a false flag operation, an exercise in misdirection intended to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. Only one of the people in the interview sounds even remotely like a scientist, and it isn't Judy Wood. It is also notable that totally unlike Dr Steven Jones, Judy wood did not lose her job (at least when last I heard)

If anybody can watch this video and find her performance even vaguely convincing, I would be astonished.

Recommend the book Alice In Wonderland and the World Trade Center by David Icke , can be had on amazon.com, and check the archives at Henrymakow.com, and Rense.com and Whatreallyhappened.com, and Veteranstoday.com, and David Icke.com, etc., etc., the truth is out there.

Beware David Icke, is all I can say. The man gives me the heebes. And do you know what this man charges to get into one of his 8-hour-long ego massaging sessions? Fifty pounds a head, the cheapest seat I saw when he spoke in London last year. A seriously shifty Brit.

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

I don’t have a photo in my university yearbook. I( do appear in a list of the “camera shy” towards the end of the yearbook, however. Every yearbook that I’ve ever seen has such a section, listing persons who, for whatever reason, did not have his picture in the yearbook. Revulsky doesn’t seem to have considered this or checked it out.

Every yearbook that I’ve ever seen has such a section, listing persons who, for whatever reason, did not have his picture in the yearbook. Revulsky doesn’t seem to have considered this or checked it out.

You see, the above is very typical of something that I was getting at in my article before this one. I referred to the "Culture of Bullshit." You say that I don't seem to have checked out this or that.

First of all, how would you know what I have checked out or not?

You see, the problem is that when you're a bullshitter, you can't really conceive of anybody else NOT being a bullshitter like you. So, since you never check any facts and just talk out of your ass, you figure that that is what I do, right?

Wrong.

I looked at all of this pretty exhaustively, the text-only class lists and everything. I can tell you that, aside from the black girl, who is labeled "Betty Ong" who I called "Black Betty", there is no Betty Ong ANYWHERE in these yearbooks.

Not only that, I really tried. I can tell you that there is no Beatrice Ong, there is no Bettina Ong....

And I can tell you that the alleged siblings of Betty who are supposed to have gone to the same school are not in any yearbook either. So, her elder brother Harry Ong is not in any yearbook from the sixties.

And again, I'm not fucking around.... I looked for Harry Ong and I looked for Harold Ong and Henry Ong too. Do you get it? You talk like everybody else is just a completely worthless bullshitter like you. But no, when I say there is no Betty Ong in any yearbook (except for that black girl!) I really scoured the thing and looked!

Most of you guys simply cannot get your heads around this. Facts??!!! Checking facts???!!! Whoah, dude, what a trippy concept!!

Never has such a self-indulgent, rambling and pointless fantasy been spun by a guy recounting little more than a few ineffectual Google searches from his Ipad in his basement.

The film noir-style narration is particularly pathetic.

Also, note Revusky, there is nothing strange about normal humans with normal emotional ranges appearing ecstatically happy a few days after their child has been murdered. Anymore than it would be weird to see someone sob at their own wedding or birth of their child. Any non-autist can tell you this

You are an idiot. Tears of joy at a happy event are one thing. But no normal person laughs after the death (traumatic or otherwise) of a loved one, much less launch in public policy talking points, as seems to happen after all of these events.

And once again Revusky is shown to be a total loon.
I was indeed being generous when I referred to his "research".
Thanks to you and to "anonymous [307]"!
Hopefully this will be the last time Ron Unz runs one of Revusky's embarrassing screeds.

Hopefully this will be the last time Ron Unz runs one of Revusky’s embarrassing screeds.

Does one get paid for writing on Unz? I know Ron’s got money to waste, but he I’m sure he could find a better use for it.

The point of the UNZ review is to provide a place for the presentation of unconventional viewpoints. They provide a counterpoint to the propaganda spewing from the media.

There is an excellent, well designed commentary section where people can discuss and disssect the article, challenge assertions and attempt to discern the truth. Revusky may be disagreeable, neurotic and wrong, but Unz put him back here because his ideas deserve consideration.

God knows most colleges and universities are not doing it, despite it being their reason to exist.

There is no proof that any Boeing 767 struck the Twin Towers. Sure, there is the impossible Hezarkhani footage violating the most fundamental laws of physics, and the numerous “Holy sh-t!” videos featuring the same screaming female banshee, but these are about as plausible as what they are purported to show, namely a mostly hollow, light, thinly skinned and fragile cylinder and even more fragile wings- effortlessly penetrating massive structural steel perimeter columns and concrete floor plans. This does not and cannot happen in the real world. Commercial airliners are not warplanes and are not designed to withstand high speed collisions with anything harder than thin air at cruising altitudes of 35,000 feet of elevation.

The authentic and real time footage from Chopper 4- with an excellent panoramic view of the Twin Towers shows there was no airliner that struck WTC 2.

The skin may be thin and fragile, but the 767-200 itself weighs 130 tons, and its load-bearing elements must be strong enough to support that weight, transferring the lift from the wings to the fuselage. This massive structure slammed into a building at hundreds of mph.

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name.

Well, that is not accurate. They potentially can be, but usually are not. In any case, the above is really sophistry. For instance, Miller and Müller are the same surnames etymologically, and, at key moments in history, apparently a lot of Americans who were Müller decided to spell their names Miller. However, from the point of view of documentation, they really are two different surnames.

Now, somebody who was christened Juan or Giovanni might try to fit in and go by the English version John, sure. But family names don't work that way. Once a family decides to spell their family name one way, they are typically quite consistent about it and there is simply no sign that the Ong family ever spelled their surname any differently from "Ong". This is just an exercise in clutching at straws.

Of course, a name could still be misspelt by accident. However, "Betty Ng" appears in both the 1973 and the 1974 yearbooks by that name. For your theory to be correct, her last name would have to be misspelt both years consecutively in exactly the same way. This is really very unlikely.

She also looks the same,

LOL.

Well, that is just a ridiculous statement. In fact, simply looking at the photo of Betty Ng, it is quite clear that this is a completely different person. The nose and face are all different. It is not really even close.

Interestingly, somebody (who?) put the Betty Ng photo from the 1974 yearbook on the findagrave.com memorial for Betty Ong. That is right here:

What you are just saying is arrant nonsense and has a distinctly disingenuous feel to it. And rather like German Reader you come across as someone desperately trying to stop scrutiny of yet another strange and embarrassing flaw in the 911 official narrative. By god have you (official) types got your work cut out.

I can’t believe I read through this tripe. High is four years. The first thing to do is check the previous yearbooks for her picture and other info. Chess club, events, or whatever she might be involved with. Obsession is a mental illness: Webster – a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling

Then as such, it is legitimate to assume, that by reading and responding to this article, that you are also 911 obsessed. Though your preoccupation seems to in keeping the always dodgy but now crumbling official narrative intact. Now that really is very sad.

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name.

Well, that is not accurate. They potentially can be, but usually are not. In any case, the above is really sophistry. For instance, Miller and Müller are the same surnames etymologically, and, at key moments in history, apparently a lot of Americans who were Müller decided to spell their names Miller. However, from the point of view of documentation, they really are two different surnames.

Now, somebody who was christened Juan or Giovanni might try to fit in and go by the English version John, sure. But family names don't work that way. Once a family decides to spell their family name one way, they are typically quite consistent about it and there is simply no sign that the Ong family ever spelled their surname any differently from "Ong". This is just an exercise in clutching at straws.

Of course, a name could still be misspelt by accident. However, "Betty Ng" appears in both the 1973 and the 1974 yearbooks by that name. For your theory to be correct, her last name would have to be misspelt both years consecutively in exactly the same way. This is really very unlikely.

She also looks the same,

LOL.

Well, that is just a ridiculous statement. In fact, simply looking at the photo of Betty Ng, it is quite clear that this is a completely different person. The nose and face are all different. It is not really even close.

Interestingly, somebody (who?) put the Betty Ng photo from the 1974 yearbook on the findagrave.com memorial for Betty Ong. That is right here:

I don’t think this will persuade you as you seem to be the sort of person who will believe whatever they want to believe, the force of contradictory reality notwithstanding. But you mention that once a family decides on a spelling they’re pretty consistent with it. Well, not always.

Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers. (Many will adopt traditional English names over their birth names in later life. Less common, though not unheard of, is changing the spelling to emphasize its ethnic character.) And it isn’t uncommon for them to change around the spelling of their surnames either. This may be done by the family as a whole or, as occurs more often, by a single member. In fact, I actually knew a girl in high school who changed the spelling of her surname from “Ong” to “Ng” when she went from her sophomore to junior year.

As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

What I don’t understand about these sort of conspiracies is the way their adherents view government agencies like the CIA and FBI. They’re sophisticated and all-powerful, yet simultaneously careless, leaving behind all manner of loose ends that somehow only people of dubious intellect and literary ability can somehow discern.

As an aside, I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine. Therefore, the “falsity” of these calls must not be as obvious or plain as believed.

And just what this site needs! More dumbshits! There is a chronic shortage of them....

Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers.

Hey dumbshit, the above only applies to first names. Some Chinese ethnic with a weird-ass name (from a Western perspective) will go by John Chen or Vivian Wong or whatever, when dealing with Westerners. Sure, that phenomenon is real. But they don't change their last names. Or certainly hardly ever. As best I can guess, typical Chinese-Americans with typical Chinese last names like Wong or Woo do not change their last name any more often than people of any other ethnic background. You're just talking shit.

As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

Amilcaro Dolmech-EtxaurrenI don’t think this will persuade you as you seem to be the sort of person who will believe whatever they want to believe, the force of contradictory reality notwithstanding.

Lets me guess: "contradictory reality" is the official narrative right? It's what we're supposed to believe because the "experts"/government/MSM/establishment say so?

The problem with "contradictory reality"(the official narrative) is that it is often wrong. The ON holds that the twin towers collapsed because of a office fire. That's it. An office fire. The ON doesn't mention an explosion, the only thing that could haved can pulverized metal and concrete in midair and push them away from ground zero. No, just a humble office fire. Pseudo Skeptics/dubunkers don't have to explain how a fire made a building explode because "contradictory reality" doesn't aknowlage it.

What I don’t understand about these sort of conspiracies is the way their adherents view government agencies like the CIA and FBI. They’re sophisticated and all-powerful...

Mass strawman. The "conspiracy theorist"(those who don't subscribe to the official narrative) do not have a monolith belief in an all powerful government or all powerful alphabet agencies.

....yet simultaneously careless...

911 was arguably the most complex black operation in history, at least that we know of, inside job or not. Mistakes would be made. You Winston Smiths can't acknowledge it because you would have to admit that a ragtag group of goat [email protected] got the best of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, NORAD, ect. No, in your mind the gfers just got lucky over a dozen times - assuming you accept that they lucked out 12 times. Do you? Nah.

...leaving behind all manner of loose ends that somehow only people of dubious intellect and literary ability can somehow discern.

Pseudo Skeptics are no more pretentious than I am sarcastic.

As an aside, I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine.

Another mass strawman. You could feed alot of bulls with all that, and I'm sure you'll enjoy eating what comes out in the end. It wouldn't be the first time: JFK,OKC,911, Assad chemical attacks.

The fact that most people believe the calls to be genuine doesn'tmean much considering that most people(at the time) believed the 911 official story

'I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine.'

Your problem, like most Americans', is that you've been brought up on tv from the cradle. Yet, like so many AMERICANS (and western Europeans, though the percentages drop drastically in other parts of the world who KNOW what the perennial phoney regime actually DOES), you think of yourself as having a very firm grip on reality. Each and every person I know of who has gone over to the other side, has had some sort of epiphany. This initial shock, which turns what they thought they knew of reality completely on its head, is followed by years of unlearning all the bullshit the system--tv, movies, school, bestsellers--has inculcated in them, till finally they believe nothing whatsoever they read or see. And this is right and proper, to use an old term. Look to Ron Unz himself, who has written on this. Perhaps one day you'll get that douse of cold water in your face (or choose your metaphor). Good luck.

Speaking of “duping delight”, the fake testimonies of people in synthetic events:

These lying ‘survivors’ are revealing in regards to the fake ’6,000,000, Jews’ / impossible ‘gas chambers’. These examples are a mere drop in the ocean of the endless, impossible, contradictory lies that are all about the minds of perverted liars, nothing more:

- According to acclaimed & so called “holocaust eyewitness” Henryk Tauber, corpses could be cremated in 5-7 minutes.
If you question that in many countries you will be imprisoned.

- “holocaust $urvivor” Irene Zisblatt, repeatedly eating and defecating several diamonds daily over the course of 18 months, escaping from not one, but two gassing chambers at the last second, or her claim that she and many other inmates were forced to stand for days on end in ankle-deep water, laden with urine and feces. She was also chosen for “eye color change” experiments and her blemish-free skin was destined to be used to make lamp shades — but she was able to avoid such fate for reasons she is uncertain of.

- Jew ‘Freddie the Pimp’ ate human flesh to survive Auschwitz

- The SS officer [who] was probably a doctor, dressed in white robe, shoved an iron stick, which had a handle on its end, right into my rectum. He then turned the stick and caused an involuntary ejaculation of sperm. A female SS officer [who] worked with the other officer held two pieces of glass underneath my genitals in order to collect a sample of my sperm for the lab. They then made me stand up on a special machine that gave electric waves to both sides of my genitals until again a sperm was ejaculated.

-Me and a Jewish American (a watchmaker, passport from the USA) were subjected to medical experiments. SS German Shepherd dogs, belonging to the commander of the SS Obersturmfuehrer Rosenbaum, with a special poison on their teeth … we had to run [and] the dogs had to chase us. Afterwards they examined our wounds, the blood. A doctor … ripped the flesh of my legs and examined it. I was able to escape. First to a peasant in a village—afterwards to friends of mine in Krakow.

much, much more here:
the so called ‘Holocaust’ / theatre of the absurd

As anyone in law enforcement will tell you, so-called "eye witness" testimony is the least reliable evidence in any criminal case and lawyers will turn to it only after having examined all the circumstantial evidence available.

But I should amend that with the qualifier that only honest lawyers will examine the circumstantial evidence thoroughly. Lawyers with an axe to grind or those who are driven by unscrupulous motives will instead highlight easily-distorted, eye-witness testimony. Most left-wing causes are supported only by rumor, hearsay and the testimony of the so-called "victims".

There was a gigantic, organised slaughter of European Jews in the 1940s. I did research in two apparently unrelated areas to it and curiously enough, Jewish victims of the Nazis are present.
1. The Good Soldier Svejk by the Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek. A character in the novel is a Cadet Biegler. Many characters were based on real-life characters known to the author. One of them was Hans Bigler.
http://honsi.org/literature/svejk/?page=11&lang=en#Bigler
Bigler's father Eduard was killed in Bergen-Belsen in 1944, on account of being Jewish. It is not clear whether Hans Bigler was fully Jewish or part-Jewish although the latter is more likely - half-Jews generally speaking survived the Nazi era although they were despised as Mischlinge. Hans Bigler seems to have attributed his own survival to an Allied air raid on Dresden, where he then lived, destroying Gestapo records.
2. A Nazi-era (1937) German film called Unternehmen Michael set during the German offensives of 1918. A supporting role in the film was played by the actor Paul Otto. Otto was in fact Jewish but this was not discovered until 1943. When it was discovered, Otto committed suicide with his wife shortly before being deported to the "East".
If the Holocaust was a hoax, why was Eduard Bigler killed? And why did a respected German actor like Paul Otto opt for suicide when he was discovered to be of Jewish origin and about to be deported to Auschwitz, Treblinka or some such destination?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0653288/?ref_=tt_cl_t2

... his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Bollocks. Forty year old high school yearbooks is exactly where one would go for the true antecedents of a narrative if one is to assess whether it's been doctored. I have little doubt that a hard copy would cement Jonathan's findings. IOW, we'd find black girl named V. Ole, and no Betty Ong or B. Ong.

Well, if Betty Ong isn’t listed in that 1974 high school graduation yearbook, I’ll be hugely surprised, and a serious investigation will be warranted. And if she turns out to be fictional, I’ll be *utterly* astonished, and the entire gigantic “9/11 conspiracy” might suddenly begin to collapse.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-show-must-go-on/#comment-1476576

Given Jonathan's work here adds volumes to the rather odd paucity and banality of information about her and her life, anyone who'd "be hugely surprised" by her absence in the Yearbook, and then "be *utterly* astonished" if she turned out to be fictional should be taken aback. He's well on the way to the latter. There appears to be nothing concrete about her. Nearly 3 decades before her 15 minutes of fame, she's as illusory as she is after. I'd say that, as "a serious investigation" isn't in the cards, only a running leap of faith can bring one to a real Betty Ong fit for the role she is said to have played.

The question now falls on Ron. Following Putin's words, "Do you hear us (truthers) now?"

Anyway, congratulations Jon, and good on ya! FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it's the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo. IOW, the idea that the name got replaced is probably on the money. Getting the background and lighting right on a dropped in photo would take skills I don't have, but a pro would. I guess a pro wasn't available.

Well, you saw the visible part of the iceberg. In private correspondence, Ron expressed such confidence that the high school yearbook would clear up the question that he wagered $10,000 on this. That, specifically, is why I finally never dropped the question! Because, really, the whole 9/11 thing for anybody who is moderately awake and aware is already such a fraud and an imposture that an extra fake stewardess more or less hardly matters.

But, you know, as you point out, Ron was turning this into some big hairy deal in public. And later, in private, he was so confident about this that he wagered $10K!

Of course, if that had been anybody in the 99% of the population for whom that is a lot of money, then I could have easily dropped the matter. One could take it as being a figure of speech, equivalent to somebody saying in a moment of agitation: “If Betty Ong is not in the yearbook, I’ll eat my hat!”

And there’s also this matter that Ron was intermittently using this Betty Ong matter as some sort of rhetorical club to beat me over the head with. “Revusky is so crazy that he thinks Betty Ong is not a real person, ya dee da.” And, really, that kind of thing does get pretty tiresome. So when you add into the whole issue that Ron was being such a total dick over this, I feel that I should obviously hold him to his end.

But, anyway, to be clear, the $10,000 wager was not about me proving that Betty Ong never existed. That’s obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult. The wager was solely about the high school yearbook. He clearly lost the wager.

In case anybody’s wondering (I guess they would be…) Ron has not reached the “acceptance phase” on having lost the wager though. In private email, he seems to be clinging to the idea that somebody here is going to make some miraculous discovery that saves the day — maybe like the person claiming that this “Betty Ng” is really Betty Ong. But that’s a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That’s not the same person. And obviously, it is quite unlikely that the girl’s name was misspelt in exactly the same way in two (or possibly more) consecutive yearbooks.

FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.

Wow, that’s pretty interesting.

Now, to be clear, figuring out who “Black Betty” is, that’s not any absolute requirement anyway. If V. Ole from the 1972 yearbook is the same person who is labeled “Betty Ong” in the 1973 yearbook, then that’s kind of like the maraschino cherry on top of the whip cream on top of the sundae.

Obviously, the black girl labeled as “Betty Ong” cannot possibly be the same person as the Chinese ethnic flight attendant who (allegedly) made the phone call on 9/11 — whoever she is… My current guess is that “Black Betty” is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text. Without that little in-joke, there is no Betty Ong anywhere. But again, there is no onus on me to demonstrate anything about who did this or why. The wager was solely about whether the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the question of Betty Ong’s existence.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either! I didn’t even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people are all just crisis actors.

My current guess is that “Black Betty” is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text.

All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks...and then leave a "little in joke" in them for you to discover???
I really hope Ron Unz won't give you those 10 000$. Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

I didn’t even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people [Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong]are all just crisis actors.

Exactly, for all you know they are actors, since it appears you didn't even make the slightest effort to contact them. And given that Cathie Ong-Herrera is the founder and president of the Betty Ann Ong Foundation, that wouldn't have been too difficult, would it?

Let's not forget that Ron Unz is generously maintaining this forum for free-ranging discussions, including publication of Jonathan Revusky's article.

Revusky has done good work advancing our understanding of a limited but important issue. This may in time lead to further insights.

One thing that is striking is that (from memory) no contemporaneous media accounts seemed to refer to testimony from colleagues of Betty Ong with whom she would have worked for more than ten years. One would expect some testimony from long-standing colleagues recalling how Betty was always good company on those long night flights, how she dealt with an in-flight emergency, etc.

Sisters Cathie and Gloria? Maybe they’re Catholic? Maybe there are baptism, communion, or confirmation records? Or maybe they were in some other religious denomination with something similar? Could be the basis for a new, double-or-nothing wager.

That’s obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult.

Difficult in general terms, but logically impossible when it concerns an empirical fact.

...“Betty Ng” is really Betty Ong. But that’s a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That’s not the same person.

I tend to agree, but frankly the photos on Ong's official site also cause one to wonder whether they're all of the same person.
Anyway, the website photo at http://www.bettyong.org/ShowPhoto.cfm?photoId=40 with Betty presumably being the girl in the centre, could be the Betty Ng in the yearbook if one assumes that someone got the year (1970) wrong.
People can change a lot in later life, but this girl (http://www.bettyong.org/ShowPhoto.cfm?photoId=10) looks to be only a couple of years older than the yearbook Ng, and I'd be stunned if it's the same person.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either!

Is there any Harry/Cathie/Gloria Ngs there?

My take on this whole affair is that Betty's existence is going to be difficult to show one way or another. In creating an identity, the creators typically find a real person who died young or otherwise disappeared, emigrated etc and build a life story on top of the old one. That a "memorial website" to a person of Ong's prominence contains next to zilch about her other than a few grainy photographs of unknown provenance raises an eyebrow. One would expect the gallery to have been full of childhood, school & career milestones and, of course her world travels.
And where are the memorial statements? Officially from American Airlines, but also from her many colleagues, friends and family? That the yearbook just adds to the mystery is all but damning, to me.

Instead of putzing about on the internet why didn’t you go to Washington high and ask to look at original copies of the year book? Every high school has them. Why didn’t you claim to be a prospective employer and request her transcript?

Why didn’t you go to the public records building in San Francisco and request her parents marriage certificate and birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born in the mid 1950s?

I find it almost hard to believe that Ron Unz is so unopen to this idea being true. He seems to be totally on board with 911--why can't he leap any further? I'll say I'm still finding old lies that I cling to--for our whole phoney society is 100% based on lies. Perhaps something like the whole Martin Luther King narrative could be an example: what that I was brought up thinking about him is true, what false? You have to imagine 'what if's' painstakingly at every twist and turn of each and every intertwining narrative. Was King CIA? Another one is Hitler. It hit me recently that perhaps he was a good guy. I don't want to get carried away with that one, but I can now see that it is indeed possible, or as possible as that can be with people on the 'world stage' level of life. Sincerity surely simply cannot exist on that exalted plane. But all our narratives, going back to George Washington and beyond, what's true (if anything), what's false? Who started the Civil War and why? What the hell was Lincoln all about? We've got all kinds of blind alleys--it seems to me, in my paranoia--held up as sorts of beacons... Bertrand Russell, many others to be found in Penguin Classics.Does anyone get my point? We need to dig much, much deeper, through all the steaming mountains of shit we thought we knew...

Well, you saw the visible part of the iceberg. In private correspondence, Ron expressed such confidence that the high school yearbook would clear up the question that he wagered $10,000 on this. That, specifically, is why I finally never dropped the question! Because, really, the whole 9/11 thing for anybody who is moderately awake and aware is already such a fraud and an imposture that an extra fake stewardess more or less hardly matters.

But, you know, as you point out, Ron was turning this into some big hairy deal in public. And later, in private, he was so confident about this that he wagered $10K!

Of course, if that had been anybody in the 99% of the population for whom that is a lot of money, then I could have easily dropped the matter. One could take it as being a figure of speech, equivalent to somebody saying in a moment of agitation: "If Betty Ong is not in the yearbook, I'll eat my hat!"

And there's also this matter that Ron was intermittently using this Betty Ong matter as some sort of rhetorical club to beat me over the head with. "Revusky is so crazy that he thinks Betty Ong is not a real person, ya dee da." And, really, that kind of thing does get pretty tiresome. So when you add into the whole issue that Ron was being such a total dick over this, I feel that I should obviously hold him to his end.

But, anyway, to be clear, the $10,000 wager was not about me proving that Betty Ong never existed. That's obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult. The wager was solely about the high school yearbook. He clearly lost the wager.

In case anybody's wondering (I guess they would be...) Ron has not reached the "acceptance phase" on having lost the wager though. In private email, he seems to be clinging to the idea that somebody here is going to make some miraculous discovery that saves the day -- maybe like the person claiming that this "Betty Ng" is really Betty Ong. But that's a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That's not the same person. And obviously, it is quite unlikely that the girl's name was misspelt in exactly the same way in two (or possibly more) consecutive yearbooks.

FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

Now, to be clear, figuring out who "Black Betty" is, that's not any absolute requirement anyway. If V. Ole from the 1972 yearbook is the same person who is labeled "Betty Ong" in the 1973 yearbook, then that's kind of like the maraschino cherry on top of the whip cream on top of the sundae.

Obviously, the black girl labeled as "Betty Ong" cannot possibly be the same person as the Chinese ethnic flight attendant who (allegedly) made the phone call on 9/11 -- whoever she is... My current guess is that "Black Betty" is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text. Without that little in-joke, there is no Betty Ong anywhere. But again, there is no onus on me to demonstrate anything about who did this or why. The wager was solely about whether the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the question of Betty Ong's existence.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either! I didn't even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people are all just crisis actors.

My current guess is that “Black Betty” is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text.

All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks…and then leave a “little in joke” in them for you to discover???
I really hope Ron Unz won’t give you those 10 000$. Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

Revusky has carefully analyzed a limited range of materials. At the very least, his observations demand some clarification.

One limitation of this approach is obvious - the analysis is based on scanned versions of the yearbook. Revusky has not attempted to contact a classmate to inspect an original (printed) copy of the yearbook.

If Ong really lived a normal life, she would have been known to neighbors and others who would have been shocked by her dramatic death and for that reason would clearly remember knowing her.

She would also have registered as a voter, owned property, gone to aerobics classes, been a "beneficiary" of a $3.72 class action settlement, etc. Where are those records?

All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks…and then leave a “little in joke” in them for you to discover???

Hey, you pathetic Kraut shithead. I never said that the security agencies altered the name of the black girl to "Betty Ong". In fact, I assume it was somebody else who did that. But I said that I don't really know who did that. I said that clearly.

Did you even read the article?

I really hope Ron Unz won’t give you those 10 000$

Well, dude, he wagered the money and he clearly lost the wager. And it's really only fair. I did give him a master class on the difference between real facts and storytelling. I would say he would be getting his ten grand's worth. After all, he got a lesson that he obviously never got taught at Harvard or Stanford or any other fancy-ass place he went to.

Regardless, even if he didn't learn the lesson, he still owes the money. It's like tuition. If a kid goes and attends Harvard for a year and manages not to learn a damned thing, then the tuition still must be paid, right? So, if Ronnie hasn't learned his lesson from this wager, he still lost and still has to pay. That should be clear enough.

But look, the beauty of this is that Ron Unz can pay the $10,000 for the master class and everybody else, including you, can get the benefit of the lesson without paying a cent. I think that's a wonderful thing and yes, you should thank Ron for that.

But as for the wager being paid out, he clearly lost. He wagered $10,000 that Betty Ong would be in the yearbook. And obviously, that meant a younger version of the 9/11 flight attendant, the Chinese one!

Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

You see, this is the kind of thing that makes people like you so insufferably stupid. You always introduce extraneous nonsense into a discussion. This is quite simple. There was a wager. The man clearly lost. So he has to pay. It has nothing to do with any assessment of my mental health. Maybe I'm as crazy as a loon. He still owes me the money!

Facebook has a page dedicated to Betty Ong with post from many former classmates who seem to know her:

Gwhs Reunion Page
March 30 at 1:14pm ·
EAGLES! EAGLES!! CALLING ALL EAGLES!!!
We are still playing catch up on our Celeb Birthdays. We most certainly did not mean to omit our Eagle Angel, Betty Ong.
Betty was the Flight Attendant wno was first to notify ground crew that the flight was being taken over by terrorists on 9.11.01. Let’s honor her memory with a moment of silence, wherever you are. Bettys’ family has established a foundation in her memory, also. Betty loved chidren. Check out the The Betty Ann Ong Foundation.” Her family has included information here, in this post. Come on Eagles, let’s show our respect and that Eagle pride. HAPPY BIRTHDAY Betty!!
Class of 1973
February 5, 1956–September 11, 2001
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EAGLE SPIRIT…EAGLE PRIDE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[MORE]

Betty Ann Ong was born on February 5, 1956 in San Francisco, California, USA to Harry Ong, Sr., and Yee-gum Ong. Betty had three siblings: brother Harry Ong and sisters Cathie Ong Herrera and Gloria Ong Woo.
Betty grew up in San Francisco’s Chinatown and graduated from George Washington High School. Her family owned a grocery store on Jackson Street.
Betty began her career as a flight attendant in 1987. Her professionalism and hard work later earned her the position of a Purser, a head flight attendant.
At the time of her death, Betty lived in Andover, Massachusetts. On September 11, 2001, Ong assigned herself to American Airlines Flight 11, so she could meet up with her sisters. Betty and her sisters had planned a vacation to Hawaii.
As the highjacking unfurled, Betty called in to American Airlines’ emergency line Betty was the first to contact any ground crew to notify them of the events taking place. She identified herself and alerted the supervisor that the aircraft had been hijacked. Along with fellow flight attendant Amy Sweeney, she relayed the seat numbers of the hijackers. During her 23-minute call, she reported that none of the crew could open the cockpit door, passenger Daniel M. Lewin and two flight attendants had been stabbed and one of the hijackers had sprayed Mace in the first class cabin.
On September 21, 2001, some 200 members of the Chinese American community in San Francisco gathered in a small park to pay tribute to Ong. Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown, who was present, gave a proclamation honoring the people who died in the tragedy and called September 21 “Betty Ong Day”.
Ong is also memorialized on Gold Mountain, a mural dedicated to Chinese contributions to American history on Romolo Place in North Beach, a street where she used to skateboard and play as a child. Betty loved children. In her memory, her family established “The Betty Ann Ong Foundation,” which was
named in her honor. In 2011, the recreation center in San Francisco’s Chinatown, where she had played as a child, was renamed in her honor. Betty loved children.
From the Ong family:
On September 11, 2001 our family experienced a tragic event that will forever impact our lives. We all lost a wonderful daughter, sister, aunt, relative and friend in Betty when she died. At 45 years old, Betty was an active and happy young woman, living her life long dream of being a flight attendant/purser. Betty had a loving, caring nature and she always placed the needs of others before her own, never hesitating to lend a helping hand, express a kind thought, or share a heart felt chuckle. That’s just the way Betty was.
Our family has spent almost 5 years adjusting our lives without Betty. For each of us that means something different, but for all of us it means missing her everyday. As we go through this difficult adjustment period the hardest part has been the realization that Betty is gone. We live every day believing that something good can be born out of this tragedy. That good is the Betty Ann Ong Foundation. The foundation’s goal is to serve as a helping hand for overweight and obese children.Betty believed that having a positive self-image and self-confidence at an early age was crucial to the development of a well adjusted individual. The message Betty shared with children whose lives she touched was that a positive “can do” attitude will always triumph over life’s setbacks and problems.
Now, more than ever, the number of children who are overweight and obese is rising at a rapid rate. Obesity in children is a serious disease with many health and psychological-social related consequences. These consequences often continue into adulthood. Implementing prevention programs and working with children to promote lifelong physical activity and healthy eating habits are important in controlling this obesity epidemic.
In memory of Betty, we ask for your generous support. A tax deductible donation to the Betty Ann Ong Foundation will help sponsor and send obese children to the Western Wellspring Adventure Camp this summer. Please help us help children build a positive self-image and self-confidence so that they can grow to become healthy, strong and productive individuals.
Your generous support will make it possible for children to:
1.learn about the positive benefits of healthy eating,
2.engage in various physical activities in the great outdoors, and
3.bond with a group of their peers facing and overcoming the same physical and emotional challenges of obesity.
The cost of sending a child to camp is $4,950.00 and the Betty Ann Ong Foundation will endeavor to send as many children to camp as possible. We want to make it clear that our Foundation is extremely thankful for all contributions received and that every penny will be applied towards our endeavor.
Please help us remember and honor Betty with your generous contribution and support to the Foundation.
On behalf of the Betty Ann Ong Foundation, I sincerely thank you.
Cathie Ong-Herrera
President/CEO
Checks should be made payable to Betty Ann Ong Foundation and can be sent to the Foundation at:
The Betty Ann Ong Foundation FEIN 56-2305946
P.O. Box 1108
Bakersfield, CA
93302
For those of you who wish to learn more about the Western Wellspring Adventure Camp, please log on to http://www.wellspringcamps.com.
To request a copy of our 501 (c) (3) determination letter, you may do so by sending an email
Betty Ong was played by Jean Yoon in the miniseries The Path to 9/11. At the National 9/11 Memorial, Ong is memorialized at the North Pool, on Panel N-74.
Image may contain: 1 person, smiling
Image may contain: 6 people, people smiling, people standing and suit
Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling
Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, closeup
Like
Show more reactions
Comment
Share
101101
9 Shares
21 Comments
Comments
Barbara Danielle Colvin
Barbara Danielle Colvin RIP
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3w
Larry Barrera
Larry Barrera Bless her
1
Manage
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 3w
Doris Kiesow Dunlap
Doris Kiesow Dunlap Betty Ong was truly a hero.

but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too

Actually he has to convincingly show that these people exist and are indeed related to the late Ms Ong, FA on Flight 11.

"Googling" does not give you convincing access to a base reality.

Overall, this article sounds like good stuff, Fox Mulder sniffing around school yearbooks comes to mind. However it also has the Hollywood unlogic of assuming that someone would fake a call from a nonexistent flight attendant that can become a story element later instead of just faking a call from an existent flight attendant. After all at the moment of faking the call you are in deep gambit territory and your plot is highly likely to not leave any witnesses.

However it also has the Hollywood unlogic of assuming that someone would fake a call from a nonexistent flight attendant that can become a story element later instead of just faking a call from an existent flight attendant. After all at the moment of faking the call you are in deep gambit territory and your plot is highly likely to not leave any witnesses.

You are asumming that the 911 conspirators would be perfectly logical and not make theses kind of mistakes. Besides, when you don’t fear prosecution you won’t be as circumspect as someone who does know matter how smart you are. Being on the inside looking out changes perspective.

It wasn’t logical, or didn’t to a truther for the 911 conspirators to have some “random ” guy give a detailed account of how the twin towers collapsed(“mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense”) within minutes when it took NIST months to supposedly come to the conclusion that is was fire. Wouldn’t people how he knew so fast? Some did actually, but not the people who are in a position to dispense justice.

1. In this video there is actually a man in a black suit that says “yeah” ending the interview.

Hopefully this will be the last time Ron Unz runs one of Revusky’s embarrassing screeds.

Does one get paid for writing on Unz? I know Ron's got money to waste, but he I'm sure he could find a better use for it.

The point of the UNZ review is to provide a place for the presentation of unconventional viewpoints. They provide a counterpoint to the propaganda spewing from the media.

There is an excellent, well designed commentary section where people can discuss and disssect the article, challenge assertions and attempt to discern the truth. Revusky may be disagreeable, neurotic and wrong, but Unz put him back here because his ideas deserve consideration.

God knows most colleges and universities are not doing it, despite it being their reason to exist.

Revusky may be disagreeable, neurotic and wrong, but Unz put him back here because his ideas deserve consideration.

I don't know Unz that well, but I've been around UR in various guises for many years. While serious, even academically so, in many respects, Unz has an unconventional sense of humor that causes him to, on infrequent occasion, publish the wackadoodles of type Revusky.

And look at what consortium of brother-wackies crawled, shimmied, soared, oozed, deplaned, trekked, hiked out of the woodwork to comment, screeching like harpies.

Well, you saw the visible part of the iceberg. In private correspondence, Ron expressed such confidence that the high school yearbook would clear up the question that he wagered $10,000 on this. That, specifically, is why I finally never dropped the question! Because, really, the whole 9/11 thing for anybody who is moderately awake and aware is already such a fraud and an imposture that an extra fake stewardess more or less hardly matters.

But, you know, as you point out, Ron was turning this into some big hairy deal in public. And later, in private, he was so confident about this that he wagered $10K!

Of course, if that had been anybody in the 99% of the population for whom that is a lot of money, then I could have easily dropped the matter. One could take it as being a figure of speech, equivalent to somebody saying in a moment of agitation: "If Betty Ong is not in the yearbook, I'll eat my hat!"

And there's also this matter that Ron was intermittently using this Betty Ong matter as some sort of rhetorical club to beat me over the head with. "Revusky is so crazy that he thinks Betty Ong is not a real person, ya dee da." And, really, that kind of thing does get pretty tiresome. So when you add into the whole issue that Ron was being such a total dick over this, I feel that I should obviously hold him to his end.

But, anyway, to be clear, the $10,000 wager was not about me proving that Betty Ong never existed. That's obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult. The wager was solely about the high school yearbook. He clearly lost the wager.

In case anybody's wondering (I guess they would be...) Ron has not reached the "acceptance phase" on having lost the wager though. In private email, he seems to be clinging to the idea that somebody here is going to make some miraculous discovery that saves the day -- maybe like the person claiming that this "Betty Ng" is really Betty Ong. But that's a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That's not the same person. And obviously, it is quite unlikely that the girl's name was misspelt in exactly the same way in two (or possibly more) consecutive yearbooks.

FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

Now, to be clear, figuring out who "Black Betty" is, that's not any absolute requirement anyway. If V. Ole from the 1972 yearbook is the same person who is labeled "Betty Ong" in the 1973 yearbook, then that's kind of like the maraschino cherry on top of the whip cream on top of the sundae.

Obviously, the black girl labeled as "Betty Ong" cannot possibly be the same person as the Chinese ethnic flight attendant who (allegedly) made the phone call on 9/11 -- whoever she is... My current guess is that "Black Betty" is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text. Without that little in-joke, there is no Betty Ong anywhere. But again, there is no onus on me to demonstrate anything about who did this or why. The wager was solely about whether the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the question of Betty Ong's existence.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either! I didn't even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people are all just crisis actors.

I didn’t even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people [Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong]are all just crisis actors.

Exactly, for all you know they are actors, since it appears you didn’t even make the slightest effort to contact them. And given that Cathie Ong-Herrera is the founder and president of the Betty Ann Ong Foundation, that wouldn’t have been too difficult, would it?

Well, you saw the visible part of the iceberg. In private correspondence, Ron expressed such confidence that the high school yearbook would clear up the question that he wagered $10,000 on this. That, specifically, is why I finally never dropped the question! Because, really, the whole 9/11 thing for anybody who is moderately awake and aware is already such a fraud and an imposture that an extra fake stewardess more or less hardly matters.

But, you know, as you point out, Ron was turning this into some big hairy deal in public. And later, in private, he was so confident about this that he wagered $10K!

Of course, if that had been anybody in the 99% of the population for whom that is a lot of money, then I could have easily dropped the matter. One could take it as being a figure of speech, equivalent to somebody saying in a moment of agitation: "If Betty Ong is not in the yearbook, I'll eat my hat!"

And there's also this matter that Ron was intermittently using this Betty Ong matter as some sort of rhetorical club to beat me over the head with. "Revusky is so crazy that he thinks Betty Ong is not a real person, ya dee da." And, really, that kind of thing does get pretty tiresome. So when you add into the whole issue that Ron was being such a total dick over this, I feel that I should obviously hold him to his end.

But, anyway, to be clear, the $10,000 wager was not about me proving that Betty Ong never existed. That's obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult. The wager was solely about the high school yearbook. He clearly lost the wager.

In case anybody's wondering (I guess they would be...) Ron has not reached the "acceptance phase" on having lost the wager though. In private email, he seems to be clinging to the idea that somebody here is going to make some miraculous discovery that saves the day -- maybe like the person claiming that this "Betty Ng" is really Betty Ong. But that's a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That's not the same person. And obviously, it is quite unlikely that the girl's name was misspelt in exactly the same way in two (or possibly more) consecutive yearbooks.

FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

Now, to be clear, figuring out who "Black Betty" is, that's not any absolute requirement anyway. If V. Ole from the 1972 yearbook is the same person who is labeled "Betty Ong" in the 1973 yearbook, then that's kind of like the maraschino cherry on top of the whip cream on top of the sundae.

Obviously, the black girl labeled as "Betty Ong" cannot possibly be the same person as the Chinese ethnic flight attendant who (allegedly) made the phone call on 9/11 -- whoever she is... My current guess is that "Black Betty" is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text. Without that little in-joke, there is no Betty Ong anywhere. But again, there is no onus on me to demonstrate anything about who did this or why. The wager was solely about whether the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the question of Betty Ong's existence.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either! I didn't even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people are all just crisis actors.

Let’s not forget that Ron Unz is generously maintaining this forum for free-ranging discussions, including publication of Jonathan Revusky’s article.

Revusky has done good work advancing our understanding of a limited but important issue. This may in time lead to further insights.

One thing that is striking is that (from memory) no contemporaneous media accounts seemed to refer to testimony from colleagues of Betty Ong with whom she would have worked for more than ten years. One would expect some testimony from long-standing colleagues recalling how Betty was always good company on those long night flights, how she dealt with an in-flight emergency, etc.

I copied the photos of Betty Ng from the HS yearbook and Betty Ong the flight attendant, blew them up on Photoshop, and increased the contrast on the high school photo. The features line up very roughly, and both photos have an odd irregularity on the gum line of the front left incisor. But Betty Ong the flight attendant has a curved scar on her upper lip which is not on the high school photo. It almost seems to extend onto her lips. The forehead seems similar in both photos, but the overall face shape is very different, with the high school photo having squirrel cheeks, a wide nose, and a more pointed chin than the stewardess picture. If it is the same person, then only two explanations come to mind, both of them rather convoluted: either she had surgery for harelip as a child, and her high school photo was airbrushed, then she went on to have a nose job and a chin implant and possibly liposuction of her cheeks. Or she had an accident later in life and had extensive plastic surgery afterwards. Those teeth look strangely similar to me, but my husband says Nah it’s not the same person.

If it is the same person, then only two explanations come to mind, both of them rather convoluted: either she had surgery (etc... snip)

Note that the people claiming that this is the same person here are not just claiming that she is the same person but that she is OBVIOUSLY the same person!

In your opinion, could they possibly be saying that in good faith?

Regardless, Ng and Ong are two different names. If you were going to assert that these are the same person, wouldn't the onus be on you to prove that up? They're trying to argue that there is an onus on me to prove that two people (who, let's face it, look pretty different) AND have different last names are not, in fact, the same person!

This is the thing. With these people, there is NEVER any onus on them to prove anything. They always tell some story for which there is no real proof (in this case, that these two people with different names are the same person) and then challenge you to disprove their silly story!

Or she had an accident later in life and had extensive plastic surgery afterwards.

Well, there's no mention of that in any of her (paltry) life history. You'd think that would be worth mentioning, how Betty overcame adversity, blah blah.

But again, it bears repeating: these people are trying to say that this is OBVIOUSLY the same person! Isn't that crazy?

The attack on 911 was done by Israel and the deep state ziocons and no planes were used only holograms of planes, the WTC was hit with directed energy weapons and 7 WTC buildings were destroyed.

The pentagon was a preplanted charge ie no plane or missile hit the pentagon.

Check Dr. Judy Wood.com for details and check the youtube videos the John Lear.

A false flag troll is a troll who pretends to be a member of a group he doesn’t belong to or have views he doesn’t subscribe to in order to put a group or a view in the worst light possible or to simply misrepresent that group or view to others.

…somethimes people say things so silly that they merly appear to be ff trolls.

You're an idiot, Revusky. Just give it up will you. A few minutes work by annonymous has demolished your whole nutcake theory. Any reasonable person can see that for themselves.

What you are just saying is arrant nonsense and has a distinctly disingenuous feel to it. And rather like German Reader you come across as someone desperately trying to stop scrutiny of yet another strange and embarrassing flaw in the 911 official narrative. By god have you (official) types got your work cut out.

Italy's former President, Francesco Cossiga, flat-out told Italy's largest newspaper, the Corriere della Serra, that major governments in Europe all privately know, that 9-11 was run by USA & Mossad
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2818/217/original.jpg

I don’t think this will persuade you as you seem to be the sort of person who will believe whatever they want to believe, the force of contradictory reality notwithstanding. But you mention that once a family decides on a spelling they’re pretty consistent with it. Well, not always.

Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers. (Many will adopt traditional English names over their birth names in later life. Less common, though not unheard of, is changing the spelling to emphasize its ethnic character.) And it isn’t uncommon for them to change around the spelling of their surnames either. This may be done by the family as a whole or, as occurs more often, by a single member. In fact, I actually knew a girl in high school who changed the spelling of her surname from “Ong” to “Ng” when she went from her sophomore to junior year.

As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

What I don’t understand about these sort of conspiracies is the way their adherents view government agencies like the CIA and FBI. They’re sophisticated and all-powerful, yet simultaneously careless, leaving behind all manner of loose ends that somehow only people of dubious intellect and literary ability can somehow discern.

As an aside, I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine. Therefore, the “falsity” of these calls must not be as obvious or plain as believed.

Wow, your very first comment on this site! Congratulations!

And just what this site needs! More dumbshits! There is a chronic shortage of them….

Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers.

Hey dumbshit, the above only applies to first names. Some Chinese ethnic with a weird-ass name (from a Western perspective) will go by John Chen or Vivian Wong or whatever, when dealing with Westerners. Sure, that phenomenon is real. But they don’t change their last names. Or certainly hardly ever. As best I can guess, typical Chinese-Americans with typical Chinese last names like Wong or Woo do not change their last name any more often than people of any other ethnic background. You’re just talking shit.

As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

Oh really, huh? So you are saying that this person:

certainly looks like a younger version of this person:

Methinks you are either a blind man or a liar. (I’ll let other people set the betting odds on which is more likely.)

That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine.

Dumbshit, what I said was that the people in the Truth community generally consider the phone calls to be fake. That statement stands.

I can't tell if the Betty Ong is a factitious hero or a real person existed. However I do like to to point out a few facts here in your analysis.

1. You followed a trail, i.e., the last or surname Ong. This could be a holy grail or rabbit trail to a hole. Asians tend to change their surname over time which oftentimes makes Westerners befuddled with their last name. Ong can also be Ng, the surname that are very prevalent in Chinese diaspora in Malaysia and Singapore, originally from Cantonese speaking part of China. A similar befuddling spelling can also be found in Jackie Chan. Although Jackie uses his last name 陳 as Chan, others use it as Chen. Min-nan speaking Chinese diaspora use as Tan. In their mind, Ng, Ong doesn't matter, neither do Chan, Chen, Tan. As long as they remotely relate to their last name in Mandarin, Chinese people will use it either one in English.

The bottom line is, your might be missing out when you followed your trail of Ong all along with an obsession on O. You didn't expand your research.

2. 1973 or 74 graduation year with let's say 2000, give or take 5 years, which makes the time difference is about 25 years. You expect to see the same person facial features? I agree that we could at least tell if the person is the same by looking at two photos. But it's usually difficult when you compare high school picture with an adult picture where people usually grow really differently. After my high school and went to college, I occasionally visit my high school teachers. Every time I visited, they all mentioned I completely changed my facial structures with more jaw bones sticking out.

Even with your Black Betty Ong photo in 1973 with spectacles and Ole V. photo in 1972 without spectacles, I still can't see if they are the same person. The only thing that stand out is both were Black female. Maybe I can't differentiate Blacks enough? Or I honestly don't think they are the same person. Enlighten me how to differentiate other races like Sherlock Holmes.

3. I didn't have my picture in my high school year book. I intentionally chose not to be a part of it when you feel like you get fed up with the school administration.

4. Why didn't you take an approach that look at the first name Betty basis? Would that consume your energy more?

5. Why didn't you contact one of the Ong family members and ask them if they can provide you with Betty Ong time at the George Washington High school around 1972-1974. As a family member, they must have kept a thing or two about Betty Ong. Instead of asking them "As I don't believe Betty Ong existed, ..." You could take an approach "Since everyone becomes suspicious of the Betty Ong existence, I would very much like to end this controversy and make the hero stand tall if you could kindly provide me with a younger Betty Ong from GWH."

But looks like you love googling instead.

Just my opinion. I'm still open to your investigation which have some plausible explanations. But to convince more with hard evidence, I honestly believe you need more ground work to do.

Someone has certainly gone to a lot of trouble to conjure out of nothing this "ostensible" family.

Harry Ong, Sr. Passed away peacefully at home on Feb. 24, with his loving family by his side. Harry Sr., 86, was the beloved husband of Yee Gum Oy, and would have been married 59 years in March. Loving father to Harry Jr. and Dorothy Ong,Cathie Ann and Edward Herrera, Gloria Ann Ong-Woo, and Betty Ann Ong, [!!!] who predeceased him. Cherished grandfather to Dean and Kameron Joelson, Matthew Ong, Lauren Woo and Austin Woo. Also survived by many loving families and friends and will be greatly missed by all. Relatives and friends are cordially invited to attend a Visitation on March 9 from 6pm to 8pm, and Funeral on March 10 at 10am, both at the Tiffany Chapel at Cypress Lawn Funeral Home, 1370 El Camino Real, Colma, CA. Interment , Cypress Lawn Cemetery in Colma, CA. The family would also like to thank Dr. Bertrand Tuan and the wonderful staff of Pacific Hematology Oncology, San Francisco, CA. In lieu of flowers, donations would be sincerely appreciated for the Betty Ann Ong Foundation, P.O. Box 1108, Bakersfield, CA 93302.

Published in San Francisco Chronicle from Mar. 4 to Mar. 5, 2007

If Betty Ann Ong didn't exist, then none of these other people could exist either, since they all are (or were) in a position to confirm her existence.

If Betty Ann Ong didn’t exist, then none of these other people could exist either, since they all are (or were) in a position to confirm her existence.

Using that logic, the twin towers collapsed from weakened steel because millions of people can confirm that a fire can not make a building explode.

My current guess is that “Black Betty” is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text.

All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks...and then leave a "little in joke" in them for you to discover???
I really hope Ron Unz won't give you those 10 000$. Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

Revusky has carefully analyzed a limited range of materials. At the very least, his observations demand some clarification.

One limitation of this approach is obvious – the analysis is based on scanned versions of the yearbook. Revusky has not attempted to contact a classmate to inspect an original (printed) copy of the yearbook.

If Ong really lived a normal life, she would have been known to neighbors and others who would have been shocked by her dramatic death and for that reason would clearly remember knowing her.

She would also have registered as a voter, owned property, gone to aerobics classes, been a “beneficiary” of a $3.72 class action settlement, etc. Where are those records?

Why should any official narrative- if manifestly true- need an army of “debunkers” to defend it?

On the other hand, there are many official narratives which do have this need. The Shoah Business and the official account of 9/11 are excellent examples. The latter is easily falsifiable since it is confined to a few hours on a single day and in a few discrete locales, and it involves alleged events which range from the absurdly improbable to the absolutely impossible, and is sustained only by a media which is increasingly being exposed as not only deceptive, but outright mendacious and Orwellian in nature. By contrast, the former narrative is deeply ingrained in the popular imagination and almost impossible to falsify, since it appears to be infinitely malleable and protean and its venues extend over a wide range of time and space. But when reduced to the factual and provable, it also collapses as absurd and impossible.

9/11 is America’s mini-Holohoax narrative. While the main event served as the engine to perpetually extort and guilt shame western, Christian Europe and to morally justify the expropriation of Palestine, the ancillary event served to galvanize the sheepish and somnolent American public into supporting wars to further that very same Zionist project.

Serious, do some research , for instance John Lear the son of William Lear of the Lear Jet, explains why no planes hit the WTC twin towers, and Dr. Judy Wood explains how the WTC twin towers steel dissipated with virtually nothing remaining via directed energy weapons.

Do a search on April Gallup a pentagon employee who walked out through the hole in the pentagon, there was neither a plane nor a missile involved , it was a prewired explosion. There is a lot more to investigate if you want the truth and Israel and the ziocons did it.

As in all the deep state false flags, none dare call it conspiracy, call it the truth.

The picture of the initial 20′ diameter hole in the Pentagon facade is still available on the internet. Supposedly it was caused by a low flying 757 striking the facade. So what happened to the wings, engines, fin, rudder, stab, elevators which could not possibly have fit through the hole? Where is the metal debris which should be plastered and sprinkled everywhere? Where are the cadavers and personal belongings? This is what full spectrum dominance and total information awareness looks like domestically……..

My current guess is that “Black Betty” is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text.

All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks...and then leave a "little in joke" in them for you to discover???
I really hope Ron Unz won't give you those 10 000$. Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks…and then leave a “little in joke” in them for you to discover???

Hey, you pathetic Kraut shithead. I never said that the security agencies altered the name of the black girl to “Betty Ong”. In fact, I assume it was somebody else who did that. But I said that I don’t really know who did that. I said that clearly.

Did you even read the article?

I really hope Ron Unz won’t give you those 10 000$

Well, dude, he wagered the money and he clearly lost the wager. And it’s really only fair. I did give him a master class on the difference between real facts and storytelling. I would say he would be getting his ten grand’s worth. After all, he got a lesson that he obviously never got taught at Harvard or Stanford or any other fancy-ass place he went to.

Regardless, even if he didn’t learn the lesson, he still owes the money. It’s like tuition. If a kid goes and attends Harvard for a year and manages not to learn a damned thing, then the tuition still must be paid, right? So, if Ronnie hasn’t learned his lesson from this wager, he still lost and still has to pay. That should be clear enough.

But look, the beauty of this is that Ron Unz can pay the $10,000 for the master class and everybody else, including you, can get the benefit of the lesson without paying a cent. I think that’s a wonderful thing and yes, you should thank Ron for that.

But as for the wager being paid out, he clearly lost. He wagered $10,000 that Betty Ong would be in the yearbook. And obviously, that meant a younger version of the 9/11 flight attendant, the Chinese one!

Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

You see, this is the kind of thing that makes people like you so insufferably stupid. You always introduce extraneous nonsense into a discussion. This is quite simple. There was a wager. The man clearly lost. So he has to pay. It has nothing to do with any assessment of my mental health. Maybe I’m as crazy as a loon. He still owes me the money!

No, he hasn't, you haven't disproven the very plausible explanation that Betty Ng = Betty Ong (contrary to your claims "obviously not the same person!", the facial features of the women on the two pictures do look quite similar to me).If you don't clear up that issue and continue to insist that Ron Unz owes you money, you might not only be manifestly crazy, but also a con man out for his own financial gain.

I did give [Ron Unz] a master class on the difference between real facts and storytelling. I I would say he would be getting his ten grand’s worth. After all, he got a lesson that he obviously never got taught at Harvard or Stanford or any other fancy-ass place he went to.

Ron Unz is being gracious enough to publish your piece here, thus demonstrating that he is open to real and vigorous discussion. Would you have published his piece if the positions were reversed?

As for a "master class" - your piece above carefully considers the material and analyzes the findings. Ron Unz has quite a number of sophisticated publications to his name and certainly does not need any "class on the difference between real facts and storytelling" from you or anyone else.

Speaking of "duping delight", the fake testimonies of people in synthetic events:

These lying 'survivors' are revealing in regards to the fake '6,000,000, Jews' / impossible 'gas chambers'. These examples are a mere drop in the ocean of the endless, impossible, contradictory lies that are all about the minds of perverted liars, nothing more:

- According to acclaimed & so called "holocaust eyewitness" Henryk Tauber, corpses could be cremated in 5-7 minutes.If you question that in many countries you will be imprisoned.

- "holocaust $urvivor" Irene Zisblatt, repeatedly eating and defecating several diamonds daily over the course of 18 months, escaping from not one, but two gassing chambers at the last second, or her claim that she and many other inmates were forced to stand for days on end in ankle-deep water, laden with urine and feces. She was also chosen for "eye color change" experiments and her blemish-free skin was destined to be used to make lamp shades -- but she was able to avoid such fate for reasons she is uncertain of.

- Jew 'Freddie the Pimp' ate human flesh to survive Auschwitz

- The SS officer [who] was probably a doctor, dressed in white robe, shoved an iron stick, which had a handle on its end, right into my rectum. He then turned the stick and caused an involuntary ejaculation of sperm. A female SS officer [who] worked with the other officer held two pieces of glass underneath my genitals in order to collect a sample of my sperm for the lab. They then made me stand up on a special machine that gave electric waves to both sides of my genitals until again a sperm was ejaculated.

-Me and a Jewish American (a watchmaker, passport from the USA) were subjected to medical experiments. SS German Shepherd dogs, belonging to the commander of the SS Obersturmfuehrer Rosenbaum, with a special poison on their teeth … we had to run [and] the dogs had to chase us. Afterwards they examined our wounds, the blood. A doctor … ripped the flesh of my legs and examined it. I was able to escape. First to a peasant in a village—afterwards to friends of mine in Krakow.

much, much more here:the so called 'Holocaust' / theatre of the absurdhttps://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=66

www.codoh.com

As anyone in law enforcement will tell you, so-called “eye witness” testimony is the least reliable evidence in any criminal case and lawyers will turn to it only after having examined all the circumstantial evidence available.

But I should amend that with the qualifier that only honest lawyers will examine the circumstantial evidence thoroughly. Lawyers with an axe to grind or those who are driven by unscrupulous motives will instead highlight easily-distorted, eye-witness testimony. Most left-wing causes are supported only by rumor, hearsay and the testimony of the so-called “victims”.

It’s interesting that with 9-11 (and other false flags like OKC), eyewitness accounts that conflict with the official line are dismissed by the gatekeepers for just this reason, but with things like the Holocaust, the most absurd “survivor” accounts are expected to be accepted uncritically (since there is little other evidence).

My own 911 doubts are based on things like excessive heat. ( Molten concrete and evaporated steel.)

Magic passports. The large hole in building 6.

Four indestructible black boxes go into the towers, all of them completely destroyed. (Jesse Ventura did an interesting show on this issue)

Failure to address a rogue airliner when it is clearly being tracked heading into D.C. restricted airspace. No air defense at all? Odd.

Rerouting the air defense chain of command prior to 911, then changing it back the day after 911. Damn queer that.

Rumsfeld announces trillions missing the day before the attack. On the day of the attack the accountants tracking the money are ground zero at the Pentagon.

I have to say the the hole in Pennsylvania really doesn’t look like a large jet liner completely buried itself there. Can a jet liner really bury itself completely in the ground? Seems very odd.

Complete news blackout, by the media.

There may be answers to some of these things, but I haven’t heard them. I will say, I think a jet airliner did hit the Pentagon as opposed to a missile or drone. I have no idea why the FBI is still withholding video over a decade later.

Revusky’s mention of Bin Laden is interesting. I have seen some evidence purporting to show that Tim Ossman was CIA cover name for OBL. I have never seen it confirmed or authenticated.

I try not to obsess over these things nowadays, but the world has split into Truthers (like me) and Mythologists–those who believe in the Zelikow myths of 911.

A very reasonable comment, apart from what you've written about the attack on the Pentagon.

Many pictures exist that were taken immediately afterwards and before the front facade of the building collapsed clearly showing that the entry hole is far smaller than the plane would have made, especially the engines. Even the glass in the nearby windows was still intact. There was little to no aircraft debris visible whereas in every real plane crash there is a massive amount. It would be impossible for a commercial aircraft to penetrate as deeply into the Pentagon as the damage showed it did. Numerous surveillance videos were confiscated immediately afterwards and have never been seen or heard of since.

However it also has the Hollywood unlogic of assuming that someone would fake a call from a nonexistent flight attendant that can become a story element later instead of just faking a call from an existent flight attendant. After all at the moment of faking the call you are in deep gambit territory and your plot is highly likely to not leave any witnesses.

You are asumming that the 911 conspirators would be perfectly logical and not make theses kind of mistakes. Besides, when you don't fear prosecution you won't be as circumspect as someone who does know matter how smart you are. Being on the inside looking out changes perspective.

It wasn't logical, or didn't to a truther for the 911 conspirators to have some "random " guy give a detailed account of how the twin towers collapsed("mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense") within minutes when it took NIST months to supposedly come to the conclusion that is was fire. Wouldn't people how he knew so fast? Some did actually, but not the people who are in a position to dispense justice.

1. In this video there is actually a man in a black suit that says "yeah" ending the interview.

It may be that the family (or some of them) decided later to change the spelling of their last name from Ng to Ong.

While this (possibly) accounts for a change in spelling, the photograph in the yearbook looks rather different from the later "Betty Ong" pictures.

Obviously, some people must know what became of the original "Betty Ng."

Also, did Betty Ong's parents own the store on Jackson Street where they supposedly worked? If so, property records should still be readily available.

Also, did Betty Ong’s parents own the store on Jackson Street where they supposedly worked? If so, property records should still be readily available.

Well, sure, it’s of interest to figure out what elements of the story do check out. However, I do hope you understand that the existence of the grocery store on Jackson Street where Betty supposedly worked would no more prove that she is real than the existence of 221 Baker Street in London where Sherlock Holmes supposedly lived proves that individual’s existence.

the existence of the grocery store on Jackson Street where Betty supposedly worked would [not] prove that she is real

True, but my question was different:

did Betty Ong’s parents own the store

It should be relatively easy to check property records to see whether Harry Ong was the property owner of the store premises while Betty supposedly lived in San Francisco. If an Ong owned the premises, this would indicate that there was an Ong family at the time.

(N.B.: Chinese sometimes use their Chinese given name on property deeds etc., and an English name such as "Harry" for more quotidian purposes. In any case, the last name is likely to be consistent, as you have pointed out.)

On the other hand, the ABSENCE of ownership evidence is NOT necessarily probative - there could have been an Ong who rented the premises.

Given the prima facie plausibility of the transcripts of the calls from Flight 11 and the absence of any whistleblower from American Airlines to say there was no Betty Ong flight attendant you really have a lot of work to do to persuade people of your 9/11 fantasy. That no such Betty Ong existed would certainly be a good reason to persist with your inquiries. But you have done about a tenth of the work needed. Starting with the Wikipedia information you could check with all sorts of birth, deaths, marriages, bankruptcies, donations to political parties, property records etc and telephone directories could help you make televant calls. As you think the digitised Year Book records have been altered - and you think you are doing something important - it is surely elementary to (a) find out who bought the last originals available, (b) advertise for originals - or the viewing of one for $100, (c) try contacting some of those on the relevant Year Book pages even if it means making 50 cold calls to hit one jàckpot.

Alternatively you could concede that you lacked investigative skills and imagination and so got it wrong. Are you not kicking yourself for not thinking the name might have been different? Maybe because there was some cranky nerd who insisted that Ong must be wrong and would properly be Ng..... or just because the adolescent Betty chose to indicate solidarity with Vietnamese refugees. And maybe the family name was still Ng then...

What you are just saying is arrant nonsense and has a distinctly disingenuous feel to it. And rather like German Reader you come across as someone desperately trying to stop scrutiny of yet another strange and embarrassing flaw in the 911 official narrative. By god have you (official) types got your work cut out.

It is always revealing how angry certain people get when an official narrative is challenged (be it 9-11 or the Holocaust).

I don't happen to believe the official narrative regarding 9/11. However, I did lose a business colleague in the Pennsylvania crash, so I know that crash happened and my friend died in it. I still occasionally hear word of his widow.

I get pissed off when loons like Revusky waste my time with bullshit like this latest. I get really pissed off when Revusky and his ilk spew nonsense that can be used to discredit all those who have rationally based doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.

Fortunately, I'll remember this experience and in the future avoid anything he writes.

On these two sites you find several fully named supposed close relatives of Betty Ong, and info that her parents owned a grocery store on Jackson Street in San Francisco.
Now I don't want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman, but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too, his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Now I don’t want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman,

It is true that Revusky has at times reacted somewhat impetuously, but nothing indicates that he is a “nutcase.” The article above is closely argued and its conclusions are well supported, WITHOUT exaggerated claims of certainty.

but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too,

You are missing the threshold question – how do we know that these people DO exist? Two or three paragraphs in a news account are easy to fake.

Were/are these individuals registered as voters or property owners? Where do they live? Newspapers have no difficulty finding out in a matter of days that the suspect in a sensational criminal case had an assault conviction in Oklahoma in 1994, and was divorced in South Dakota in July 2002. A sophisticated system of “credit reporting” keeps track of residence addresses etc. throughout a person’s life, tied to Social Security numbers and financial records, and thus hard for individuals to fake.

The ABSENCE of more detailed reports seems suspicious. Why is there no “Betty Ong Remembered 15 Years Later” feature e.g. in the National Enquirer?

his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Perhaps “German Reader” is not aware how Gunter Guillaume was unmasked as an East German spy who worked for years in the immediate entourage of West German chancellor “Willy Brandt” (né Herbert Frahm) in the 1970s. West German security services had decided to undertake a major project of verifying the records of all refugees from East Germany who had arrived in the chaos of the early 1950s – quite an undertaking in the pre-Internet age. Guillaume’s early records did not match his later claims.

(It has been suggested that Willy Brandt knew at some level that Guillaume was an East German agent, just as FDR probably understood at some level that Harry Hopkins extraordinary energy and loyalty were due to the fact that he was an agent for Stalin. Foreign agents are definition committed to advancing and protecting the position of the politicians they serve as long as possible.)

Why is there no “Betty Ong Remembered 15 Years Later” feature e.g. in the National Enquirer?

Because she was just one of almost 3000 9/11 victims and her life had been completely ordinary before 9/11?
Besides, there are several newsstories of the "Betty Ong remembered" kind, if you look at post 2 in this thread, I linked to one from 2011 which also features Betty Ong's former fiancee (a certain Robert Landrum who even today is easily googleable as involved with some karate studio in Andover, Massachusetts).
And the first story I linked to in post 2 has this about her:
"An avid collector of Beanie Babies toys and Barbie dolls"

At the very least, Revusky's claims "Betty Ong doesn't feel like a real person, no mention of relatives, romantic partners or hobbies" is manifestly untrue. Even casual googling refutes Revusky's claims.

You pose a lot of questions and possible investigations. You obviously have the time so why not make up for Revusky's deficiencies and make some of the obvious inquiries. Try birth, marriage and death certificates for a start and births, deaths and marriages as personal ads. The telephone isn't a bad research tool too...People often have numbers that predate any temptation to invent the person.

The point of the UNZ review is to provide a place for the presentation of unconventional viewpoints. They provide a counterpoint to the propaganda spewing from the media.

There is an excellent, well designed commentary section where people can discuss and disssect the article, challenge assertions and attempt to discern the truth. Revusky may be disagreeable, neurotic and wrong, but Unz put him back here because his ideas deserve consideration.

God knows most colleges and universities are not doing it, despite it being their reason to exist.

Fine, I was just asking if he was paid for his ideas that are so deserving of consideration. If so, then I’ve got lots of ideas too.

Well, you saw the visible part of the iceberg. In private correspondence, Ron expressed such confidence that the high school yearbook would clear up the question that he wagered $10,000 on this. That, specifically, is why I finally never dropped the question! Because, really, the whole 9/11 thing for anybody who is moderately awake and aware is already such a fraud and an imposture that an extra fake stewardess more or less hardly matters.

But, you know, as you point out, Ron was turning this into some big hairy deal in public. And later, in private, he was so confident about this that he wagered $10K!

Of course, if that had been anybody in the 99% of the population for whom that is a lot of money, then I could have easily dropped the matter. One could take it as being a figure of speech, equivalent to somebody saying in a moment of agitation: "If Betty Ong is not in the yearbook, I'll eat my hat!"

And there's also this matter that Ron was intermittently using this Betty Ong matter as some sort of rhetorical club to beat me over the head with. "Revusky is so crazy that he thinks Betty Ong is not a real person, ya dee da." And, really, that kind of thing does get pretty tiresome. So when you add into the whole issue that Ron was being such a total dick over this, I feel that I should obviously hold him to his end.

But, anyway, to be clear, the $10,000 wager was not about me proving that Betty Ong never existed. That's obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult. The wager was solely about the high school yearbook. He clearly lost the wager.

In case anybody's wondering (I guess they would be...) Ron has not reached the "acceptance phase" on having lost the wager though. In private email, he seems to be clinging to the idea that somebody here is going to make some miraculous discovery that saves the day -- maybe like the person claiming that this "Betty Ng" is really Betty Ong. But that's a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That's not the same person. And obviously, it is quite unlikely that the girl's name was misspelt in exactly the same way in two (or possibly more) consecutive yearbooks.

FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

Now, to be clear, figuring out who "Black Betty" is, that's not any absolute requirement anyway. If V. Ole from the 1972 yearbook is the same person who is labeled "Betty Ong" in the 1973 yearbook, then that's kind of like the maraschino cherry on top of the whip cream on top of the sundae.

Obviously, the black girl labeled as "Betty Ong" cannot possibly be the same person as the Chinese ethnic flight attendant who (allegedly) made the phone call on 9/11 -- whoever she is... My current guess is that "Black Betty" is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text. Without that little in-joke, there is no Betty Ong anywhere. But again, there is no onus on me to demonstrate anything about who did this or why. The wager was solely about whether the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the question of Betty Ong's existence.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either! I didn't even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people are all just crisis actors.

Sisters Cathie and Gloria? Maybe they’re Catholic? Maybe there are baptism, communion, or confirmation records? Or maybe they were in some other religious denomination with something similar? Could be the basis for a new, double-or-nothing wager.

As anyone in law enforcement will tell you, so-called "eye witness" testimony is the least reliable evidence in any criminal case and lawyers will turn to it only after having examined all the circumstantial evidence available.

But I should amend that with the qualifier that only honest lawyers will examine the circumstantial evidence thoroughly. Lawyers with an axe to grind or those who are driven by unscrupulous motives will instead highlight easily-distorted, eye-witness testimony. Most left-wing causes are supported only by rumor, hearsay and the testimony of the so-called "victims".

It’s interesting that with 9-11 (and other false flags like OKC), eyewitness accounts that conflict with the official line are dismissed by the gatekeepers for just this reason, but with things like the Holocaust, the most absurd “survivor” accounts are expected to be accepted uncritically (since there is little other evidence).

"Little evidence" for the so called 'holocaust' is an under statement.

Imagine in a real / legit court of law where someone claims that millions of people were murdered and dumped into mass graves, but then could not produce the claimed mass graves and the alleged contents. They would be laughed out of that court.

Such is the 'holocau$t' scam.

- If there was ‘a plan to kill every Jew the Germans could get their hands on’ as alleged, then why are there countless numbers of so called “survivor$"?

- If the alleged ‘holocaust’ was fact, then why are there laws in Europe to prevent scrutiny of it? What kind of “truth” needs to imprison people to prevent free speech?

- If Jews are so sure that millions of Jews were murdered and dumped into alleged known, existing mass graves, then why do they ask such dumb questions like "what happened to them then?

All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks…and then leave a “little in joke” in them for you to discover???

Hey, you pathetic Kraut shithead. I never said that the security agencies altered the name of the black girl to "Betty Ong". In fact, I assume it was somebody else who did that. But I said that I don't really know who did that. I said that clearly.

Did you even read the article?

I really hope Ron Unz won’t give you those 10 000$

Well, dude, he wagered the money and he clearly lost the wager. And it's really only fair. I did give him a master class on the difference between real facts and storytelling. I would say he would be getting his ten grand's worth. After all, he got a lesson that he obviously never got taught at Harvard or Stanford or any other fancy-ass place he went to.

Regardless, even if he didn't learn the lesson, he still owes the money. It's like tuition. If a kid goes and attends Harvard for a year and manages not to learn a damned thing, then the tuition still must be paid, right? So, if Ronnie hasn't learned his lesson from this wager, he still lost and still has to pay. That should be clear enough.

But look, the beauty of this is that Ron Unz can pay the $10,000 for the master class and everybody else, including you, can get the benefit of the lesson without paying a cent. I think that's a wonderful thing and yes, you should thank Ron for that.

But as for the wager being paid out, he clearly lost. He wagered $10,000 that Betty Ong would be in the yearbook. And obviously, that meant a younger version of the 9/11 flight attendant, the Chinese one!

Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

You see, this is the kind of thing that makes people like you so insufferably stupid. You always introduce extraneous nonsense into a discussion. This is quite simple. There was a wager. The man clearly lost. So he has to pay. It has nothing to do with any assessment of my mental health. Maybe I'm as crazy as a loon. He still owes me the money!

The man clearly lost

No, he hasn’t, you haven’t disproven the very plausible explanation that Betty Ng = Betty Ong (contrary to your claims “obviously not the same person!”, the facial features of the women on the two pictures do look quite similar to me).
If you don’t clear up that issue and continue to insist that Ron Unz owes you money, you might not only be manifestly crazy, but also a con man out for his own financial gain.

If you don’t clear up that issue and continue to insist that Ron Unz owes you money, you might not only be manifestly crazy, but also a con man out for his own financial gain.

What's with the personal animosity? Revusky comes across as impetuous, but this does not make him a "con man." It cannot be easy to con Ron Unz in general. Here, everyone has access to the same information, so we have a level playing field.

It is true that the Ng/Ong issue needs to be addressed in more detail. But this does not detract from the fact that Revusky seems to have found a striking inconsistency in the yearbooks concerning "Betty Ong." Remember that the premise is that the Chinese Betty Ong attended the specific high school during the specific period in question. Was her father (Harry Ong) registered as a voter around that time? Did Betty Ong herself register to vote, e.g. at her parents' address? Same questions for Betty Ng.

You consider it plausible that this person's name was misspelt in exactly the same way in consecutive yearbooks? AND on the graduating class list from Spring 1974 as well? They all misspelled her name exactly the same way, dropping the initial O?

Also, why is Betty Ong's name clearly inserted in the Spring 1973 graduating class list? And this time spelled correctly as O-N-G?

the facial features of the women on the two pictures do look quite similar to me

They do, huh? Do you wear glasses or contact lenses? If so, have you had your eyes checked recently?

All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks…and then leave a “little in joke” in them for you to discover???

Hey, you pathetic Kraut shithead. I never said that the security agencies altered the name of the black girl to "Betty Ong". In fact, I assume it was somebody else who did that. But I said that I don't really know who did that. I said that clearly.

Did you even read the article?

I really hope Ron Unz won’t give you those 10 000$

Well, dude, he wagered the money and he clearly lost the wager. And it's really only fair. I did give him a master class on the difference between real facts and storytelling. I would say he would be getting his ten grand's worth. After all, he got a lesson that he obviously never got taught at Harvard or Stanford or any other fancy-ass place he went to.

Regardless, even if he didn't learn the lesson, he still owes the money. It's like tuition. If a kid goes and attends Harvard for a year and manages not to learn a damned thing, then the tuition still must be paid, right? So, if Ronnie hasn't learned his lesson from this wager, he still lost and still has to pay. That should be clear enough.

But look, the beauty of this is that Ron Unz can pay the $10,000 for the master class and everybody else, including you, can get the benefit of the lesson without paying a cent. I think that's a wonderful thing and yes, you should thank Ron for that.

But as for the wager being paid out, he clearly lost. He wagered $10,000 that Betty Ong would be in the yearbook. And obviously, that meant a younger version of the 9/11 flight attendant, the Chinese one!

Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

You see, this is the kind of thing that makes people like you so insufferably stupid. You always introduce extraneous nonsense into a discussion. This is quite simple. There was a wager. The man clearly lost. So he has to pay. It has nothing to do with any assessment of my mental health. Maybe I'm as crazy as a loon. He still owes me the money!

I don't have a photo in my university yearbook. I( do appear in a list of the "camera shy" towards the end of the yearbook, however. Every yearbook that I've ever seen has such a section, listing persons who, for whatever reason, did not have his picture in the yearbook. Revulsky doesn't seem to have considered this or checked it out.

Every yearbook that I’ve ever seen has such a section, listing persons who, for whatever reason, did not have his picture in the yearbook. Revulsky doesn’t seem to have considered this or checked it out.

You see, the above is very typical of something that I was getting at in my article before this one. I referred to the “Culture of Bullshit.” You say that I don’t seem to have checked out this or that.

First of all, how would you know what I have checked out or not?

You see, the problem is that when you’re a bullshitter, you can’t really conceive of anybody else NOT being a bullshitter like you. So, since you never check any facts and just talk out of your ass, you figure that that is what I do, right?

Wrong.

I looked at all of this pretty exhaustively, the text-only class lists and everything. I can tell you that, aside from the black girl, who is labeled “Betty Ong” who I called “Black Betty”, there is no Betty Ong ANYWHERE in these yearbooks.

Not only that, I really tried. I can tell you that there is no Beatrice Ong, there is no Bettina Ong….

And I can tell you that the alleged siblings of Betty who are supposed to have gone to the same school are not in any yearbook either. So, her elder brother Harry Ong is not in any yearbook from the sixties.

And again, I’m not fucking around…. I looked for Harry Ong and I looked for Harold Ong and Henry Ong too. Do you get it? You talk like everybody else is just a completely worthless bullshitter like you. But no, when I say there is no Betty Ong in any yearbook (except for that black girl!) I really scoured the thing and looked!

Most of you guys simply cannot get your heads around this. Facts??!!! Checking facts???!!! Whoah, dude, what a trippy concept!!

All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks…and then leave a “little in joke” in them for you to discover???

Hey, you pathetic Kraut shithead. I never said that the security agencies altered the name of the black girl to "Betty Ong". In fact, I assume it was somebody else who did that. But I said that I don't really know who did that. I said that clearly.

Did you even read the article?

I really hope Ron Unz won’t give you those 10 000$

Well, dude, he wagered the money and he clearly lost the wager. And it's really only fair. I did give him a master class on the difference between real facts and storytelling. I would say he would be getting his ten grand's worth. After all, he got a lesson that he obviously never got taught at Harvard or Stanford or any other fancy-ass place he went to.

Regardless, even if he didn't learn the lesson, he still owes the money. It's like tuition. If a kid goes and attends Harvard for a year and manages not to learn a damned thing, then the tuition still must be paid, right? So, if Ronnie hasn't learned his lesson from this wager, he still lost and still has to pay. That should be clear enough.

But look, the beauty of this is that Ron Unz can pay the $10,000 for the master class and everybody else, including you, can get the benefit of the lesson without paying a cent. I think that's a wonderful thing and yes, you should thank Ron for that.

But as for the wager being paid out, he clearly lost. He wagered $10,000 that Betty Ong would be in the yearbook. And obviously, that meant a younger version of the 9/11 flight attendant, the Chinese one!

Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

You see, this is the kind of thing that makes people like you so insufferably stupid. You always introduce extraneous nonsense into a discussion. This is quite simple. There was a wager. The man clearly lost. So he has to pay. It has nothing to do with any assessment of my mental health. Maybe I'm as crazy as a loon. He still owes me the money!

I did give [Ron Unz] a master class on the difference between real facts and storytelling. I I would say he would be getting his ten grand’s worth. After all, he got a lesson that he obviously never got taught at Harvard or Stanford or any other fancy-ass place he went to.

Ron Unz is being gracious enough to publish your piece here, thus demonstrating that he is open to real and vigorous discussion. Would you have published his piece if the positions were reversed?

As for a “master class” – your piece above carefully considers the material and analyzes the findings. Ron Unz has quite a number of sophisticated publications to his name and certainly does not need any “class on the difference between real facts and storytelling” from you or anyone else.

Ron Unz has quite a number of sophisticated publications to his name and certainly does not need any “class on the difference between real facts and storytelling” from you or anyone else.

A few years ago, I would have agreed with the above. However, since then, I have come to understand the man's weak points.

Ron Unz really seems to believe that if enough people repeat a story, particularly people he deems "prominent", the story somehow becomes true. Or, at least, it gains this very strong presumption of being true...

So, enough "prominent" people repeated this Betty Ong story that Ronnie decided that it must be true, to the point of wagering $10,000 that her high school attendance would check out if you got your hands on a yearbook.

That Unz would make such a wager about this kind of cipher character shows clearly that the man does not fully understand the difference between storytelling and real facts. Of course, that also applies to the majority of the contributors and participants on this website.

Now I don’t want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman,

It is true that Revusky has at times reacted somewhat impetuously, but nothing indicates that he is a "nutcase." The article above is closely argued and its conclusions are well supported, WITHOUT exaggerated claims of certainty.

but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too,

You are missing the threshold question - how do we know that these people DO exist? Two or three paragraphs in a news account are easy to fake.

Were/are these individuals registered as voters or property owners? Where do they live? Newspapers have no difficulty finding out in a matter of days that the suspect in a sensational criminal case had an assault conviction in Oklahoma in 1994, and was divorced in South Dakota in July 2002. A sophisticated system of "credit reporting" keeps track of residence addresses etc. throughout a person's life, tied to Social Security numbers and financial records, and thus hard for individuals to fake.

The ABSENCE of more detailed reports seems suspicious. Why is there no "Betty Ong Remembered 15 Years Later" feature e.g. in the National Enquirer?

his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Perhaps "German Reader" is not aware how Gunter Guillaume was unmasked as an East German spy who worked for years in the immediate entourage of West German chancellor "Willy Brandt" (né Herbert Frahm) in the 1970s. West German security services had decided to undertake a major project of verifying the records of all refugees from East Germany who had arrived in the chaos of the early 1950s - quite an undertaking in the pre-Internet age. Guillaume's early records did not match his later claims.

(It has been suggested that Willy Brandt knew at some level that Guillaume was an East German agent, just as FDR probably understood at some level that Harry Hopkins extraordinary energy and loyalty were due to the fact that he was an agent for Stalin. Foreign agents are definition committed to advancing and protecting the position of the politicians they serve as long as possible.)

Why is there no “Betty Ong Remembered 15 Years Later” feature e.g. in the National Enquirer?

Because she was just one of almost 3000 9/11 victims and her life had been completely ordinary before 9/11?
Besides, there are several newsstories of the “Betty Ong remembered” kind, if you look at post 2 in this thread, I linked to one from 2011 which also features Betty Ong’s former fiancee (a certain Robert Landrum who even today is easily googleable as involved with some karate studio in Andover, Massachusetts).
And the first story I linked to in post 2 has this about her:
“An avid collector of Beanie Babies toys and Barbie dolls”

At the very least, Revusky’s claims “Betty Ong doesn’t feel like a real person, no mention of relatives, romantic partners or hobbies” is manifestly untrue. Even casual googling refutes Revusky’s claims.

Back a couple of years ago, Revusky had claimed---based on absolutely zero evidence---that an individual I'd never heard of named "Betty Ong" didn't really exist, despite the numerous MSM interviews with her friends, close family members, and fiance. I said that sounded crazy to me, and based on presumption I was about 99.9% sure she did exist. In fact, I think I told him I considered it more likely that he himself was a "disinfo agent" than the woman never existed. After his numerous emailed responses became a nuisance, I offered to pay him $10,000 if he would go away and locate some hard evidence that would persuade me that she was actually fictitious, perhaps by getting actual copies of the H.S. yearbook or other things he had started focusing upon.

He recently came back to me, saying he'd now found the yearbook pages online, and that although they did indeed include her name, the photo was wrong, proving that the pages had been forged to cover up the gigantic 9/11 conspiracy. Such a bizarre tongue-in-cheek "forgery" seemed extremely implausible to me, but I did find the mistaken photo sufficiently suspicious that it reduced my confidence of Betty Ong's existence down to perhaps 80-90%. Since I was too busy to carefully explore his complex argument, I offered to publish an article of his on the subject (if he apologized to Rurik). As I told him, since so many of the other commenters hate him and think he's crazy, perhaps at least a few of them would be motivated to dig into the matter in considerable detail, allowing me to review the contrasting arguments and decide for myself where the probabilities lay.

Based on what I've read so far, I'd say I'm now about 90-95% convinced that Betty Ong probably did exist. Needless to say, I'm not going to pay Jonathan anything unless he comes up with much better evidence for his astonishing claim, though that is still certainly possible.

This is *exactly* the reason I've always explicitly emphasized that I do *NOT* personally stand behind any of the articles published on my website...

I can't believe I read through this tripe. High is four years. The first thing to do is check the previous yearbooks for her picture and other info. Chess club, events, or whatever she might be involved with. Obsession is a mental illness: Webster - a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling

You intimate that obsession is doing research into 911.

Then as such, it is legitimate to assume, that by reading and responding to this article, that you are also 911 obsessed. Though your preoccupation seems to in keeping the always dodgy but now crumbling official narrative intact. Now that really is very sad.

One cannot make phone calls with a mobile phone from a passenger plane, as MH370 demonstrated.
The second pilot tried to use his phone, made contact, but when he began to speak the plane already was too far from the ground antennae.
The software is too slow, it functions with cars and trains.

In the Hollywood movie over the Pennsylvania plane, that never crashed there, according to the coroner it 'atomised' in the air, therefore the inflight phones were used.

Then the question how the fake phone conversations could be, well, long before Sept 11 the USA already had voice cloning sofware, the software makes it possible after just a short time of recording of any voice, to construct any message.

Rubbish. Apart from arrangements to provide for use of mobile phones and internet on long distance flights in recent years there is every likelihood of being close enough to a transmission tower in the NE of the US.

I don’t think this will persuade you as you seem to be the sort of person who will believe whatever they want to believe, the force of contradictory reality notwithstanding. But you mention that once a family decides on a spelling they’re pretty consistent with it. Well, not always.

Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers. (Many will adopt traditional English names over their birth names in later life. Less common, though not unheard of, is changing the spelling to emphasize its ethnic character.) And it isn’t uncommon for them to change around the spelling of their surnames either. This may be done by the family as a whole or, as occurs more often, by a single member. In fact, I actually knew a girl in high school who changed the spelling of her surname from “Ong” to “Ng” when she went from her sophomore to junior year.

As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

What I don’t understand about these sort of conspiracies is the way their adherents view government agencies like the CIA and FBI. They’re sophisticated and all-powerful, yet simultaneously careless, leaving behind all manner of loose ends that somehow only people of dubious intellect and literary ability can somehow discern.

As an aside, I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine. Therefore, the “falsity” of these calls must not be as obvious or plain as believed.

Amilcaro Dolmech-EtxaurrenI don’t think this will persuade you as you seem to be the sort of person who will believe whatever they want to believe, the force of contradictory reality notwithstanding.

Lets me guess: “contradictory reality” is the official narrative right? It’s what we’re supposed to believe because the “experts”/government/MSM/establishment say so?

The problem with “contradictory reality”(the official narrative) is that it is often wrong. The ON holds that the twin towers collapsed because of a office fire. That’s it. An office fire. The ON doesn’t mention an explosion, the only thing that could haved can pulverized metal and concrete in midair and push them away from ground zero. No, just a humble office fire. Pseudo Skeptics/dubunkers don’t have to explain how a fire made a building explode because “contradictory reality” doesn’t aknowlage it.

What I don’t understand about these sort of conspiracies is the way their adherents view government agencies like the CIA and FBI. They’re sophisticated and all-powerful…

Mass strawman. The “conspiracy theorist”(those who don’t subscribe to the official narrative) do not have a monolith belief in an all powerful government or all powerful alphabet agencies.

….yet simultaneously careless…

911 was arguably the most complex black operation in history, at least that we know of, inside job or not. Mistakes would be made. You Winston Smiths can’t acknowledge it because you would have to admit that a ragtag group of goat [email protected] got the best of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, NORAD, ect. No, in your mind the gfers just got lucky over a dozen times – assuming you accept that they lucked out 12 times. Do you? Nah.

…leaving behind all manner of loose ends that somehow only people of dubious intellect and literary ability can somehow discern.

Pseudo Skeptics are no more pretentious than I am sarcastic.

As an aside, I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine.

Another mass strawman. You could feed alot of bulls with all that, and I’m sure you’ll enjoy eating what comes out in the end. It wouldn’t be the first time: JFK,OKC,911, Assad chemical attacks.

The fact that most people believe the calls to be genuine doesn’tmean much considering that most people(at the time) believed the 911 official story

Good reply, but a nitpick: Winston Smith actually knew something was wrong and, although he ultimately failed, did rebel/resist in some way. The hysterical gatekeepers who crop up here are more like Smith’s neighbor, Parsons, a militantly stupid man whose only joy in life was regurgitating The Party’s lies.

No, he hasn't, you haven't disproven the very plausible explanation that Betty Ng = Betty Ong (contrary to your claims "obviously not the same person!", the facial features of the women on the two pictures do look quite similar to me).If you don't clear up that issue and continue to insist that Ron Unz owes you money, you might not only be manifestly crazy, but also a con man out for his own financial gain.

If you don’t clear up that issue and continue to insist that Ron Unz owes you money, you might not only be manifestly crazy, but also a con man out for his own financial gain.

What’s with the personal animosity? Revusky comes across as impetuous, but this does not make him a “con man.” It cannot be easy to con Ron Unz in general. Here, everyone has access to the same information, so we have a level playing field.

It is true that the Ng/Ong issue needs to be addressed in more detail. But this does not detract from the fact that Revusky seems to have found a striking inconsistency in the yearbooks concerning “Betty Ong.” Remember that the premise is that the Chinese Betty Ong attended the specific high school during the specific period in question. Was her father (Harry Ong) registered as a voter around that time? Did Betty Ong herself register to vote, e.g. at her parents’ address? Same questions for Betty Ng.

Now I don’t want to encourage an obnoxious nutcase like Revusky to pester the relatives of a dead woman,

It is true that Revusky has at times reacted somewhat impetuously, but nothing indicates that he is a "nutcase." The article above is closely argued and its conclusions are well supported, WITHOUT exaggerated claims of certainty.

but unless he can prove that these people are all fake and invented too,

You are missing the threshold question - how do we know that these people DO exist? Two or three paragraphs in a news account are easy to fake.

Were/are these individuals registered as voters or property owners? Where do they live? Newspapers have no difficulty finding out in a matter of days that the suspect in a sensational criminal case had an assault conviction in Oklahoma in 1994, and was divorced in South Dakota in July 2002. A sophisticated system of "credit reporting" keeps track of residence addresses etc. throughout a person's life, tied to Social Security numbers and financial records, and thus hard for individuals to fake.

The ABSENCE of more detailed reports seems suspicious. Why is there no "Betty Ong Remembered 15 Years Later" feature e.g. in the National Enquirer?

his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Perhaps "German Reader" is not aware how Gunter Guillaume was unmasked as an East German spy who worked for years in the immediate entourage of West German chancellor "Willy Brandt" (né Herbert Frahm) in the 1970s. West German security services had decided to undertake a major project of verifying the records of all refugees from East Germany who had arrived in the chaos of the early 1950s - quite an undertaking in the pre-Internet age. Guillaume's early records did not match his later claims.

(It has been suggested that Willy Brandt knew at some level that Guillaume was an East German agent, just as FDR probably understood at some level that Harry Hopkins extraordinary energy and loyalty were due to the fact that he was an agent for Stalin. Foreign agents are definition committed to advancing and protecting the position of the politicians they serve as long as possible.)

You pose a lot of questions and possible investigations. You obviously have the time so why not make up for Revusky’s deficiencies and make some of the obvious inquiries. Try birth, marriage and death certificates for a start and births, deaths and marriages as personal ads. The telephone isn’t a bad research tool too…People often have numbers that predate any temptation to invent the person.

There is no proof that any Boeing 767 struck the Twin Towers. Sure, there is the impossible Hezarkhani footage violating the most fundamental laws of physics, and the numerous "Holy sh-t!" videos featuring the same screaming female banshee, but these are about as plausible as what they are purported to show, namely a mostly hollow, light, thinly skinned and fragile cylinder and even more fragile wings- effortlessly penetrating massive structural steel perimeter columns and concrete floor plans. This does not and cannot happen in the real world. Commercial airliners are not warplanes and are not designed to withstand high speed collisions with anything harder than thin air at cruising altitudes of 35,000 feet of elevation.

The authentic and real time footage from Chopper 4- with an excellent panoramic view of the Twin Towers shows there was no airliner that struck WTC 2.

The skin may be thin and fragile, but the 767-200 itself weighs 130 tons, and its load-bearing elements must be strong enough to support that weight, transferring the lift from the wings to the fuselage. This massive structure slammed into a building at hundreds of mph.

And it was slammed into by a building weighing 500,000 tons. Conservation of momentum and all that. A bug hits a car with the same force that the car hits the bug, which do you suppose will better weather the impact?

No, he hasn't, you haven't disproven the very plausible explanation that Betty Ng = Betty Ong (contrary to your claims "obviously not the same person!", the facial features of the women on the two pictures do look quite similar to me).If you don't clear up that issue and continue to insist that Ron Unz owes you money, you might not only be manifestly crazy, but also a con man out for his own financial gain.

the very plausible explanation that Betty Ng = Betty Ong

You consider it plausible that this person’s name was misspelt in exactly the same way in consecutive yearbooks? AND on the graduating class list from Spring 1974 as well? They all misspelled her name exactly the same way, dropping the initial O?

Also, why is Betty Ong’s name clearly inserted in the Spring 1973 graduating class list? And this time spelled correctly as O-N-G?

the facial features of the women on the two pictures do look quite similar to me

They do, huh? Do you wear glasses or contact lenses? If so, have you had your eyes checked recently?

Amilcaro Dolmech-EtxaurrenI don’t think this will persuade you as you seem to be the sort of person who will believe whatever they want to believe, the force of contradictory reality notwithstanding.

Lets me guess: "contradictory reality" is the official narrative right? It's what we're supposed to believe because the "experts"/government/MSM/establishment say so?

The problem with "contradictory reality"(the official narrative) is that it is often wrong. The ON holds that the twin towers collapsed because of a office fire. That's it. An office fire. The ON doesn't mention an explosion, the only thing that could haved can pulverized metal and concrete in midair and push them away from ground zero. No, just a humble office fire. Pseudo Skeptics/dubunkers don't have to explain how a fire made a building explode because "contradictory reality" doesn't aknowlage it.

What I don’t understand about these sort of conspiracies is the way their adherents view government agencies like the CIA and FBI. They’re sophisticated and all-powerful...

Mass strawman. The "conspiracy theorist"(those who don't subscribe to the official narrative) do not have a monolith belief in an all powerful government or all powerful alphabet agencies.

....yet simultaneously careless...

911 was arguably the most complex black operation in history, at least that we know of, inside job or not. Mistakes would be made. You Winston Smiths can't acknowledge it because you would have to admit that a ragtag group of goat [email protected] got the best of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DIA, NORAD, ect. No, in your mind the gfers just got lucky over a dozen times - assuming you accept that they lucked out 12 times. Do you? Nah.

...leaving behind all manner of loose ends that somehow only people of dubious intellect and literary ability can somehow discern.

Pseudo Skeptics are no more pretentious than I am sarcastic.

As an aside, I’ll admit that the crack about all phone calls made from the hijacked planes on 9/11 as being “plainly fake” according to the “Truth community” was a highly amusing one. That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine.

Another mass strawman. You could feed alot of bulls with all that, and I'm sure you'll enjoy eating what comes out in the end. It wouldn't be the first time: JFK,OKC,911, Assad chemical attacks.

The fact that most people believe the calls to be genuine doesn'tmean much considering that most people(at the time) believed the 911 official story

Good reply, but a nitpick: Winston Smith actually knew something was wrong and, although he ultimately failed, did rebel/resist in some way. The hysterical gatekeepers who crop up here are more like Smith’s neighbor, Parsons, a militantly stupid man whose only joy in life was regurgitating The Party’s lies.

One physiologically bound to the official narrative irrespective of its validity. Parson will enthusiastically regurgitate the ON as gospel and ignore anything that contradics it.

As far as a Parsons is concerned the official narrative is reality. Anyone not in line with the ON is on the outside of reality, those outside this reality are often derided as conspiracy theorist.

To a Parsons, the only reason why one would disagree with the ON is stupidity, ignorance, gullibility or dishonesty.

Parsons who put time into debunking alternatives to the ON call themselves skeptics or debunkers. Instead of simply dismissing those who counter the ON claims as conspiracy theorist, crackpots and loons skeptics/debukers will research counter ON claims and give reasons why such claims are wrong.

Interesting. The Chinese version of Wikipedia has Betty Ong's Chinese name as 鄧月薇 which in Mandarin would be pronounced DENG Yuewei. (Of course, Betty Wong's family would probably have spoken Cantonese and English, not Mandarin.) The article gives no source for the Chinese name.

The family name 鄧 Deng could NOT be transliterated as "Ong" regardless of Chinese dialect. It is not clear what accounts for this discrepancy.

There have been cases where U.S. immigration officials mixed up family and given names, and the immigrants decided to go along with the new "last name" in English while (of course) retaining their traditional surname in Chinese.

And just what this site needs! More dumbshits! There is a chronic shortage of them....

Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers.

Hey dumbshit, the above only applies to first names. Some Chinese ethnic with a weird-ass name (from a Western perspective) will go by John Chen or Vivian Wong or whatever, when dealing with Westerners. Sure, that phenomenon is real. But they don't change their last names. Or certainly hardly ever. As best I can guess, typical Chinese-Americans with typical Chinese last names like Wong or Woo do not change their last name any more often than people of any other ethnic background. You're just talking shit.

As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

And just what this site needs! More dumbshits! There is a chronic shortage of them....

Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers.

Hey dumbshit, the above only applies to first names. Some Chinese ethnic with a weird-ass name (from a Western perspective) will go by John Chen or Vivian Wong or whatever, when dealing with Westerners. Sure, that phenomenon is real. But they don't change their last names. Or certainly hardly ever. As best I can guess, typical Chinese-Americans with typical Chinese last names like Wong or Woo do not change their last name any more often than people of any other ethnic background. You're just talking shit.

As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

Methinks you are either a blind man or a liar. (I'll let other people set the betting odds on which is more likely.)

That they’re “plainly” fake isn’t quite true as most believe people them to be genuine.

Dumbshit, what I said was that the people in the Truth community generally consider the phone calls to be fake. That statement stands.

I can’t tell if the Betty Ong is a factitious hero or a real person existed. However I do like to to point out a few facts here in your analysis.

1. You followed a trail, i.e., the last or surname Ong. This could be a holy grail or rabbit trail to a hole. Asians tend to change their surname over time which oftentimes makes Westerners befuddled with their last name. Ong can also be Ng, the surname that are very prevalent in Chinese diaspora in Malaysia and Singapore, originally from Cantonese speaking part of China. A similar befuddling spelling can also be found in Jackie Chan. Although Jackie uses his last name 陳 as Chan, others use it as Chen. Min-nan speaking Chinese diaspora use as Tan. In their mind, Ng, Ong doesn’t matter, neither do Chan, Chen, Tan. As long as they remotely relate to their last name in Mandarin, Chinese people will use it either one in English.

The bottom line is, your might be missing out when you followed your trail of Ong all along with an obsession on O. You didn’t expand your research.

2. 1973 or 74 graduation year with let’s say 2000, give or take 5 years, which makes the time difference is about 25 years. You expect to see the same person facial features? I agree that we could at least tell if the person is the same by looking at two photos. But it’s usually difficult when you compare high school picture with an adult picture where people usually grow really differently. After my high school and went to college, I occasionally visit my high school teachers. Every time I visited, they all mentioned I completely changed my facial structures with more jaw bones sticking out.

Even with your Black Betty Ong photo in 1973 with spectacles and Ole V. photo in 1972 without spectacles, I still can’t see if they are the same person. The only thing that stand out is both were Black female. Maybe I can’t differentiate Blacks enough? Or I honestly don’t think they are the same person. Enlighten me how to differentiate other races like Sherlock Holmes.

3. I didn’t have my picture in my high school year book. I intentionally chose not to be a part of it when you feel like you get fed up with the school administration.

4. Why didn’t you take an approach that look at the first name Betty basis? Would that consume your energy more?

5. Why didn’t you contact one of the Ong family members and ask them if they can provide you with Betty Ong time at the George Washington High school around 1972-1974. As a family member, they must have kept a thing or two about Betty Ong. Instead of asking them “As I don’t believe Betty Ong existed, …” You could take an approach “Since everyone becomes suspicious of the Betty Ong existence, I would very much like to end this controversy and make the hero stand tall if you could kindly provide me with a younger Betty Ong from GWH.”

But looks like you love googling instead.

Just my opinion. I’m still open to your investigation which have some plausible explanations. But to convince more with hard evidence, I honestly believe you need more ground work to do.

Also, did Betty Ong’s parents own the store on Jackson Street where they supposedly worked? If so, property records should still be readily available.

Well, sure, it's of interest to figure out what elements of the story do check out. However, I do hope you understand that the existence of the grocery store on Jackson Street where Betty supposedly worked would no more prove that she is real than the existence of 221 Baker Street in London where Sherlock Holmes supposedly lived proves that individual's existence.

the existence of the grocery store on Jackson Street where Betty supposedly worked would [not] prove that she is real

True, but my question was different:

did Betty Ong’s parents own the store

It should be relatively easy to check property records to see whether Harry Ong was the property owner of the store premises while Betty supposedly lived in San Francisco. If an Ong owned the premises, this would indicate that there was an Ong family at the time.

(N.B.: Chinese sometimes use their Chinese given name on property deeds etc., and an English name such as “Harry” for more quotidian purposes. In any case, the last name is likely to be consistent, as you have pointed out.)

On the other hand, the ABSENCE of ownership evidence is NOT necessarily probative – there could have been an Ong who rented the premises.

Also, did Betty Ong’s parents own the store on Jackson Street where they supposedly worked? If so, property records should still be readily available.

Well, sure, it's of interest to figure out what elements of the story do check out. However, I do hope you understand that the existence of the grocery store on Jackson Street where Betty supposedly worked would no more prove that she is real than the existence of 221 Baker Street in London where Sherlock Holmes supposedly lived proves that individual's existence.

Given the prima facie plausibility of the transcripts of the calls from Flight 11 and the absence of any whistleblower from American Airlines to say there was no Betty Ong flight attendant you really have a lot of work to do to persuade people of your 9/11 fantasy. That no such Betty Ong existed would certainly be a good reason to persist with your inquiries. But you have done about a tenth of the work needed. Starting with the Wikipedia information you could check with all sorts of birth, deaths, marriages, bankruptcies, donations to political parties, property records etc and telephone directories could help you make televant calls. As you think the digitised Year Book records have been altered – and you think you are doing something important – it is surely elementary to (a) find out who bought the last originals available, (b) advertise for originals – or the viewing of one for $100, (c) try contacting some of those on the relevant Year Book pages even if it means making 50 cold calls to hit one jàckpot.

Alternatively you could concede that you lacked investigative skills and imagination and so got it wrong. Are you not kicking yourself for not thinking the name might have been different? Maybe because there was some cranky nerd who insisted that Ong must be wrong and would properly be Ng….. or just because the adolescent Betty chose to indicate solidarity with Vietnamese refugees. And maybe the family name was still Ng then…

Are you not kicking yourself for not thinking the name might have been different?

Good point but Revusky is subjected to kicking by other so much that he gives himself automatic dispensation and does not kick himself. Any criticism and he doubles down. People are not driven by external realities but by the internal ones. He does not care about the truth more than anybody else but most of all he cares about being right or rather proving his opponents being wrong. Ron Unz kind of challenged him and it hit the soft spot. You will see that as this comment thread evolves he won't be reasonable or won't take the constructive criticisms. In the end he will threaten to dox us all, even those who sympathize with him.

Interesting article. My experience is that fake identities are created by using the name of a person who legitimately disappeared. One example I know about was a kidnapped German biologist who was brought to America and given the name of a soldier who died in the Korean War. The Navy allowed such extensive access to their records that it was possible for a certain agent to erase mention of his death and add to his history. After his supposed discharge, his history continues in a far away city where no one would know who he was. So the back history exists, but he was still a fake person.

Perhaps Betty emigrated to China. An American educated and skilled person would have been in demand there. Possibly she just needed to be disappeared because of some TLA (CIA/NSA/etc/etc) situation.

I don’t think there is any way of knowing for sure whether the Betty Ong who died on 9/11 was a fake or not. I am skeptical that there would have been cell phone calls from a plane in 2001. The technology was far less advanced than today. And the way those three towers fell straight down hours after the impact of two airplanes leaves me incredulous that anyone could believe the official story.

You don't really pay attention do you. Revusky pursued totally inadequate research and didn't even think of the name being changed, in this case only slightly but critically. As to the phone calls they weren't from ordinary cell phones (which might or might not have been close enough to transmission towers) and you can read the very plausible transcripts by an easy search. BTW why do you think there have been none of American Airlines 1000s of employees to say there was no Betty Ong?

A false flag troll is a troll who pretends to be a member of a group he doesn't belong to or have views he doesn't subscribe to in order to put a group or a view in the worst light possible or to simply misrepresent that group or view to others.

...somethimes people say things so silly that they merly appear to be ff trolls.

Do some research, as George Orwell said , telling the truth in a world of deceit is a revolutionary act.

The skin may be thin and fragile, but the 767-200 itself weighs 130 tons, and its load-bearing elements must be strong enough to support that weight, transferring the lift from the wings to the fuselage. This massive structure slammed into a building at hundreds of mph.

And it was slammed into by a building weighing 500,000 tons. Conservation of momentum and all that. A bug hits a car with the same force that the car hits the bug, which do you suppose will better weather the impact?

What is it about what used to be called the "Third Law of Motion" that these people do not get? Ballistics proves conclusively that the "airliner penetrating structural steel and concrete floor pans" is bollocks. Imagine if anyone tried to market a magic armor piercing round composed of a thin aluminum jacket and a hollow core.!

I copied the photos of Betty Ng from the HS yearbook and Betty Ong the flight attendant, blew them up on Photoshop, and increased the contrast on the high school photo. The features line up very roughly, and both photos have an odd irregularity on the gum line of the front left incisor. But Betty Ong the flight attendant has a curved scar on her upper lip which is not on the high school photo. It almost seems to extend onto her lips. The forehead seems similar in both photos, but the overall face shape is very different, with the high school photo having squirrel cheeks, a wide nose, and a more pointed chin than the stewardess picture. If it is the same person, then only two explanations come to mind, both of them rather convoluted: either she had surgery for harelip as a child, and her high school photo was airbrushed, then she went on to have a nose job and a chin implant and possibly liposuction of her cheeks. Or she had an accident later in life and had extensive plastic surgery afterwards. Those teeth look strangely similar to me, but my husband says Nah it's not the same person.

If it is the same person, then only two explanations come to mind, both of them rather convoluted: either she had surgery (etc… snip)

Note that the people claiming that this is the same person here are not just claiming that she is the same person but that she is OBVIOUSLY the same person!

In your opinion, could they possibly be saying that in good faith?

Regardless, Ng and Ong are two different names. If you were going to assert that these are the same person, wouldn’t the onus be on you to prove that up? They’re trying to argue that there is an onus on me to prove that two people (who, let’s face it, look pretty different) AND have different last names are not, in fact, the same person!

This is the thing. With these people, there is NEVER any onus on them to prove anything. They always tell some story for which there is no real proof (in this case, that these two people with different names are the same person) and then challenge you to disprove their silly story!

Or she had an accident later in life and had extensive plastic surgery afterwards.

Well, there’s no mention of that in any of her (paltry) life history. You’d think that would be worth mentioning, how Betty overcame adversity, blah blah.

But again, it bears repeating: these people are trying to say that this is OBVIOUSLY the same person! Isn’t that crazy?

There are enough small resemblances that I'm still on the fence. But you're right, it is not "obvious." The mere fact of the many discrepancies about her high school days is odd to say the least, and I would like to know more.

Did I even mention the lack of dark eyebrows in the high school photo? Even if she plucked them in 1973 (and it was in fashion then), they seldom grow back as luxuriantly as they appear in the stewardess photo.

The scar on her upper lip in the stewardess photo is not visible in all the reiterations of the photo online. But it was quite obvious in the one I picked at random, which was on the first row when I googled "Betty Ong 9/11."

The point of the UNZ review is to provide a place for the presentation of unconventional viewpoints. They provide a counterpoint to the propaganda spewing from the media.

There is an excellent, well designed commentary section where people can discuss and disssect the article, challenge assertions and attempt to discern the truth. Revusky may be disagreeable, neurotic and wrong, but Unz put him back here because his ideas deserve consideration.

God knows most colleges and universities are not doing it, despite it being their reason to exist.

Yep, and Ron very shrewdly figured that Revusky would be shown to have made a fool of himself – again – and eliminated any claim on that $10,000 once and for all

Well, you saw the visible part of the iceberg. In private correspondence, Ron expressed such confidence that the high school yearbook would clear up the question that he wagered $10,000 on this. That, specifically, is why I finally never dropped the question! Because, really, the whole 9/11 thing for anybody who is moderately awake and aware is already such a fraud and an imposture that an extra fake stewardess more or less hardly matters.

But, you know, as you point out, Ron was turning this into some big hairy deal in public. And later, in private, he was so confident about this that he wagered $10K!

Of course, if that had been anybody in the 99% of the population for whom that is a lot of money, then I could have easily dropped the matter. One could take it as being a figure of speech, equivalent to somebody saying in a moment of agitation: "If Betty Ong is not in the yearbook, I'll eat my hat!"

And there's also this matter that Ron was intermittently using this Betty Ong matter as some sort of rhetorical club to beat me over the head with. "Revusky is so crazy that he thinks Betty Ong is not a real person, ya dee da." And, really, that kind of thing does get pretty tiresome. So when you add into the whole issue that Ron was being such a total dick over this, I feel that I should obviously hold him to his end.

But, anyway, to be clear, the $10,000 wager was not about me proving that Betty Ong never existed. That's obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult. The wager was solely about the high school yearbook. He clearly lost the wager.

In case anybody's wondering (I guess they would be...) Ron has not reached the "acceptance phase" on having lost the wager though. In private email, he seems to be clinging to the idea that somebody here is going to make some miraculous discovery that saves the day -- maybe like the person claiming that this "Betty Ng" is really Betty Ong. But that's a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That's not the same person. And obviously, it is quite unlikely that the girl's name was misspelt in exactly the same way in two (or possibly more) consecutive yearbooks.

FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

Now, to be clear, figuring out who "Black Betty" is, that's not any absolute requirement anyway. If V. Ole from the 1972 yearbook is the same person who is labeled "Betty Ong" in the 1973 yearbook, then that's kind of like the maraschino cherry on top of the whip cream on top of the sundae.

Obviously, the black girl labeled as "Betty Ong" cannot possibly be the same person as the Chinese ethnic flight attendant who (allegedly) made the phone call on 9/11 -- whoever she is... My current guess is that "Black Betty" is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text. Without that little in-joke, there is no Betty Ong anywhere. But again, there is no onus on me to demonstrate anything about who did this or why. The wager was solely about whether the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the question of Betty Ong's existence.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either! I didn't even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people are all just crisis actors.

That’s obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult.

Difficult in general terms, but logically impossible when it concerns an empirical fact.

…“Betty Ng” is really Betty Ong. But that’s a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That’s not the same person.

I tend to agree, but frankly the photos on Ong’s official site also cause one to wonder whether they’re all of the same person.
Anyway, the website photo at http://www.bettyong.org/ShowPhoto.cfm?photoId=40 with Betty presumably being the girl in the centre, could be the Betty Ng in the yearbook if one assumes that someone got the year (1970) wrong.
People can change a lot in later life, but this girl (http://www.bettyong.org/ShowPhoto.cfm?photoId=10) looks to be only a couple of years older than the yearbook Ng, and I’d be stunned if it’s the same person.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either!

Is there any Harry/Cathie/Gloria Ngs there?

My take on this whole affair is that Betty’s existence is going to be difficult to show one way or another. In creating an identity, the creators typically find a real person who died young or otherwise disappeared, emigrated etc and build a life story on top of the old one. That a “memorial website” to a person of Ong’s prominence contains next to zilch about her other than a few grainy photographs of unknown provenance raises an eyebrow. One would expect the gallery to have been full of childhood, school & career milestones and, of course her world travels.
And where are the memorial statements? Officially from American Airlines, but also from her many colleagues, friends and family? That the yearbook just adds to the mystery is all but damning, to me.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either!

Is there any Harry/Cathie/Gloria Ngs there?

When you posed the question, I hadn't looked, but now I have and the answer is again no. One click glance you can do is just looking at the sfgenealogy graduating class lists and you can use Google to do that. So let's look for Betty Ong, say:

https://www.google.com/search?q="betty+ong"+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

You get exactly one result, which is the Spring 1973 graduating class list, and as we know, you look in the yearbook online and you find "Black Betty"! LOL.

If you look for Betty Ng:

https://www.google.com/search?q="betty+ng"+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

you get two hits, which is George Washington HS class of Spring 1974 and class of Spring 1978. The earlier one is this Betty Ng that all the idiot trolls here are claiming OBVIOUSLY is the flight attendant from 9/11! Obviously!

So it's easy enough to repeat the same search for both Harry Ong and Harry Ng

https://www.google.com/search?q="harry+ong"+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

https://www.google.com/search?q="harry+ng"+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

Nothing, zilch.

No Harold Ong OR Harold Ng either.

https://www.google.com/search?q="harold+ong"+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

https://www.google.com/search?q="harold+ng"+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

Try Henry Ong and Henry Ng then:

https://www.google.com/search?q="henry+ong"+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

https://www.google.com/search?q="henry+ng"+site%3Asfgenealogy.org

There is a Henry Ong from a different high school, Galileo High School, class of Fall 1948. Way too early and the wrong school.

There are two Henry Ng's both from George Washington High School, class of Fall 1954 and class of 2002 respectively. (After 1974 they didn't have separate Spring and Fall graduating classes). Anyway, unless you want to believe that Harry Ong was really Henry Ng and he graduated high school at the age of 54 or thereabouts. Or that he was Henry Ong and graduated at about the age of 6, then....

The above, it's easy to provide direct clickable links, so I do. The same applies to Gloria Ong OR Gloria Ng. Try it. I leave it as an exercise for anybody.

So, even if you take seriously the idea that it makes sense to extend the search to NG, then still clearly none of the siblings graduated from that high school. OR, apparently, any other San Francisco high school!

But there is an overarching point here. All these people talking all this nonsense about the poor research I did, if you gave them 100 years, none of them would do the simple Google searches above on their own steam. No, of course not. They would sit with their fingers up their arses and wait for me to do it!

There are people spinning this tall tale that Betty Ong was previously Betty Ng and then later changed her name and they are seriously proposing that I should go try to verify this by looking at court records for where she changed her name! They make up some story and it is up to me to go try to verify or refute THEIR story!

This is the thing about all of this sort of situation. They tell a story and somehow their story has some presumption of truth and then they demand that you refute their story. But you see that they are totally ensconced in the Culture of Bullshit and have probably never checked a basic, easily checked fact on their own steam in their entire blessed lives!

And then when you go check some basic facts and report back, these people have the cheek, the bloody chutzpah, to start sneering at the "shoddy research" you allegedly did. People who read any story somewhere just believe it because it's there. "Muslim Rape Army invades Germany! Tourism to Germany reaches all-time high!"

Well, anyway, the only thing I set out to establish, due to that wager with Ron, was that the relevant high school yearbooks don't back up the story we were provided. Obviously, I did enough to win the wager.

The picture of the initial 20' diameter hole in the Pentagon facade is still available on the internet. Supposedly it was caused by a low flying 757 striking the facade. So what happened to the wings, engines, fin, rudder, stab, elevators which could not possibly have fit through the hole? Where is the metal debris which should be plastered and sprinkled everywhere? Where are the cadavers and personal belongings? This is what full spectrum dominance and total information awareness looks like domestically........

True, but why do you want to bring energy weapons into it? Like with Mini Nukes, trying to insert this one into any sensible discussion is just subterfuge.

For the record, the evidence is clearly that cutting charges were pre-placed on the steel support columns and then triggered electronically. The triggering would have been remote and software controlled, and the triggering network may have been wired or wireless. As to the exact nature of the cutting charges, this paper provides the most likely conclusion:

Yep, anyone who still believes the "official" story is the real "nutjob conspiracy theorist", though there are few left that do, and most Americans know that Bush admin. was in on it.Just look at some of the evidence available on the web, its pretty obvious.I disagree with the energy weapons theory, and I think the planes or no planes argument is just a distraction. WTC was brought down with explosives, the videos show the explosions happening, even someone with no knowledge of controlled demolitions can see the buildings did not just collapse on their own. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, it collapsed. Buildings do not collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint without the use of professionally rigged explosives to take out the supporting columns, not physically possible. No debate.

Our "government" lies about everything, so why wouldn't they lie about this? MIC, Israel, Saudis, Bankers, traitors within our govt all played a role. Everyone we've went to war with had no role in it. Only allies, dual citizens and traitors killed Americans that day, no different than Lavon Affair or USS Liberty, no theories needed there, they've been admitted to.

https://youtu.be/1kzAdWtdqVA

https://youtu.be/TYBODaz6ywg

Appreciate Unz putting up 9/11 articles, 9/11 truth would end all this madness, murder, theft and deceit.

She doesn’t present well and she can have a very literal, narrow, visual focus. For example, when she says that she doesn’t think there was much heat at ground zero and presents as evidence that workman’s boots couldn’t have melted because if the steel toes melted, it would have roasted their feet, she misses the point.

The soles of the boots were melting not the steel toes. The neoprene or rubber sole melted making it hard to stay balanced. Which is important when you are walking around on a mound of rusty razor blades. She also ignores copious eye-witness accounts of the heat.

She doesn’t think the jets could penetrate the building. But at high speed they could. The same way you can stab a pencil through a screen door. It doesn’t have to “cut” the steel. Brute force can break the steel.

Some parts she gets right though. The toasted cars are interesting. The hurricane is interesting. Her book presents some of the best visual evidence available. Too bad people can’t seem to argue rationally (Judy and Fetzer) and sometimes let their emotions/egos get in control.

She also filed a lawsuit challenging the official story, which is more than most people have done.

You’re talking about Judy Woods? She herself does not inspire much confidence, but the DEW theory is worth investigating, something centered around nearby Brookhaven Labs in Long Island is a definite candidate.

And just what this site needs! More dumbshits! There is a chronic shortage of them....

Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers.

Hey dumbshit, the above only applies to first names. Some Chinese ethnic with a weird-ass name (from a Western perspective) will go by John Chen or Vivian Wong or whatever, when dealing with Westerners. Sure, that phenomenon is real. But they don't change their last names. Or certainly hardly ever. As best I can guess, typical Chinese-Americans with typical Chinese last names like Wong or Woo do not change their last name any more often than people of any other ethnic background. You're just talking shit.

As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

It is always revealing how angry certain people get when an official narrative is challenged (be it 9-11 or the Holocaust).

I don’t happen to believe the official narrative regarding 9/11. However, I did lose a business colleague in the Pennsylvania crash, so I know that crash happened and my friend died in it. I still occasionally hear word of his widow.

I get pissed off when loons like Revusky waste my time with bullshit like this latest. I get really pissed off when Revusky and his ilk spew nonsense that can be used to discredit all those who have rationally based doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.

Fortunately, I’ll remember this experience and in the future avoid anything he writes.

Whatever you may think of Revusky's CONCLUSIONS, he fully documented his methods and resources in the article. In other words, Revusky he has been careful NOT to waste a reader's time trying to figure out what he did or didn't do to arrive at his conclusions.

It would be great if our formerly great newspapers were even a third as careful and diligent as Revusky.

... his research about 40-year old high school yearbooks is pretty worthless imo.

Bollocks. Forty year old high school yearbooks is exactly where one would go for the true antecedents of a narrative if one is to assess whether it's been doctored. I have little doubt that a hard copy would cement Jonathan's findings. IOW, we'd find black girl named V. Ole, and no Betty Ong or B. Ong.

Well, if Betty Ong isn’t listed in that 1974 high school graduation yearbook, I’ll be hugely surprised, and a serious investigation will be warranted. And if she turns out to be fictional, I’ll be *utterly* astonished, and the entire gigantic “9/11 conspiracy” might suddenly begin to collapse.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-show-must-go-on/#comment-1476576

Given Jonathan's work here adds volumes to the rather odd paucity and banality of information about her and her life, anyone who'd "be hugely surprised" by her absence in the Yearbook, and then "be *utterly* astonished" if she turned out to be fictional should be taken aback. He's well on the way to the latter. There appears to be nothing concrete about her. Nearly 3 decades before her 15 minutes of fame, she's as illusory as she is after. I'd say that, as "a serious investigation" isn't in the cards, only a running leap of faith can bring one to a real Betty Ong fit for the role she is said to have played.

The question now falls on Ron. Following Putin's words, "Do you hear us (truthers) now?"

Anyway, congratulations Jon, and good on ya! FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it's the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo. IOW, the idea that the name got replaced is probably on the money. Getting the background and lighting right on a dropped in photo would take skills I don't have, but a pro would. I guess a pro wasn't available.

Oh dear! As one who takes yourself so seriously, with a damn good third class mind, aren’t you thoroughly embarrassed at having effectually endorsed Revusky’s skimpily inadequate researches – about 10 per cent of what was needed and that’s without counting his lack of imagination about the name being Ng?

I looked at Erebus' comment history and found the comments to be well reasoned and generally making useful contributions. You on the other hand lack the creativity to even come up with a simple user name.

You consider it plausible that this person's name was misspelt in exactly the same way in consecutive yearbooks? AND on the graduating class list from Spring 1974 as well? They all misspelled her name exactly the same way, dropping the initial O?

Also, why is Betty Ong's name clearly inserted in the Spring 1973 graduating class list? And this time spelled correctly as O-N-G?

the facial features of the women on the two pictures do look quite similar to me

They do, huh? Do you wear glasses or contact lenses? If so, have you had your eyes checked recently?

They all misspelled her name exactly the same way, dropping the initial O?

It’s not exactly a misspelling, but an alternative transliteration. I find it plausible.
Anyway, why don’t you try to disprove this theory and find out who this Betty Ng was?

And just what this site needs! More dumbshits! There is a chronic shortage of them....

Asian-Americans tend to be self-conscious about their names, often worrying whether they may look or sound “weird” to native English speakers.

Hey dumbshit, the above only applies to first names. Some Chinese ethnic with a weird-ass name (from a Western perspective) will go by John Chen or Vivian Wong or whatever, when dealing with Westerners. Sure, that phenomenon is real. But they don't change their last names. Or certainly hardly ever. As best I can guess, typical Chinese-Americans with typical Chinese last names like Wong or Woo do not change their last name any more often than people of any other ethnic background. You're just talking shit.

As for the girl in the photo, that certainly looks like Betty Ong to me.

All-powerful security agencies behind a 9/11 conspiracy go to the trouble to alter 40-year old high school yearbooks…and then leave a “little in joke” in them for you to discover???

Hey, you pathetic Kraut shithead. I never said that the security agencies altered the name of the black girl to "Betty Ong". In fact, I assume it was somebody else who did that. But I said that I don't really know who did that. I said that clearly.

Did you even read the article?

I really hope Ron Unz won’t give you those 10 000$

Well, dude, he wagered the money and he clearly lost the wager. And it's really only fair. I did give him a master class on the difference between real facts and storytelling. I would say he would be getting his ten grand's worth. After all, he got a lesson that he obviously never got taught at Harvard or Stanford or any other fancy-ass place he went to.

Regardless, even if he didn't learn the lesson, he still owes the money. It's like tuition. If a kid goes and attends Harvard for a year and manages not to learn a damned thing, then the tuition still must be paid, right? So, if Ronnie hasn't learned his lesson from this wager, he still lost and still has to pay. That should be clear enough.

But look, the beauty of this is that Ron Unz can pay the $10,000 for the master class and everybody else, including you, can get the benefit of the lesson without paying a cent. I think that's a wonderful thing and yes, you should thank Ron for that.

But as for the wager being paid out, he clearly lost. He wagered $10,000 that Betty Ong would be in the yearbook. And obviously, that meant a younger version of the 9/11 flight attendant, the Chinese one!

Even sympathy for the mentally ill ought to have its limits.

You see, this is the kind of thing that makes people like you so insufferably stupid. You always introduce extraneous nonsense into a discussion. This is quite simple. There was a wager. The man clearly lost. So he has to pay. It has nothing to do with any assessment of my mental health. Maybe I'm as crazy as a loon. He still owes me the money!

Hey, you pathetic Kraut shithead

Again, I think you are just shining a mirror on yourself, so to speak. So what are you going to call me?

It’s interesting that with 9-11 (and other false flags like OKC), eyewitness accounts that conflict with the official line are dismissed by the gatekeepers for just this reason, but with things like the Holocaust, the most absurd “survivor” accounts are expected to be accepted uncritically (since there is little other evidence).

“Little evidence” for the so called ‘holocaust’ is an under statement.

Imagine in a real / legit court of law where someone claims that millions of people were murdered and dumped into mass graves, but then could not produce the claimed mass graves and the alleged contents. They would be laughed out of that court.

Such is the ‘holocau$t’ scam.

- If there was ‘a plan to kill every Jew the Germans could get their hands on’ as alleged, then why are there countless numbers of so called “survivor$”?

- If the alleged ‘holocaust’ was fact, then why are there laws in Europe to prevent scrutiny of it? What kind of “truth” needs to imprison people to prevent free speech?

- If Jews are so sure that millions of Jews were murdered and dumped into alleged known, existing mass graves, then why do they ask such dumb questions like “what happened to them then?

Interesting. The Chinese version of Wikipedia has Betty Ong’s Chinese name as 鄧月薇 which in Mandarin would be pronounced DENG Yuewei. (Of course, Betty Wong’s family would probably have spoken Cantonese and English, not Mandarin.) The article gives no source for the Chinese name.

The family name 鄧 Deng could NOT be transliterated as “Ong” regardless of Chinese dialect. It is not clear what accounts for this discrepancy.

There have been cases where U.S. immigration officials mixed up family and given names, and the immigrants decided to go along with the new “last name” in English while (of course) retaining their traditional surname in Chinese.

In this photo from The S.F. Examiner, we see that Betty Ong's memorial has the Chinese characters 鄧月薇 (Deng Yuewei) below her name in English: Betty (Bee) Ann Ong.

https://media2.fdncms.com/sfexaminer/imager/harry-ong-jr-visits-the-betty-ann-ong-chi/u/original/2896095/bettyon.jpgMike Koozmin / The S.F. ExaminerCaption: Harry Ong Jr. visits the Betty Ann Ong Chinese Recreation Center, named after his sister who was a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11 on 9/11 that crashed into one of the WTC towers.

Using Google Translate, I can verify that 鄧月薇 is read in Chinese as Dèng Yuèwēi. The central character 月 means moon, or month and is in common usage, while I suspect Deng and Wei may use characters reserved exclusively for names.

The point of this little exercise is show that Deng, Ng, and Ong are separate names in Chinese, with distinct individual characters for each. The reason Betty Ann Ong's Chinese name is Deng Yuewei is not clear.

The Chinese version of Wikipedia has Betty Ong’s Chinese name as 鄧月薇 which in Mandarin would be pronounced DENG Yuewei.

As if the yearbook issue weren't fascinating enough, I have recently learned here that the famous 9/11 AA11 stewardess Betty Ong was also known as Deng Yuewei.

Upstream I showed that Deng, Ng, and Ong are separate Chinese surnames each with its own distinctive Chinese character (commonly called ideograms, but now more precisely termed logograms), which fact cuts off at the pass arguments about changes in spelling, or administrative mistakes.

Maybe there is some simple and logical explanation for Betty Ann Ong having the additional Chinese name of Deng Yuewei -- artistic, literary, or religious? -- and I am hopeful someone here will be able to explain it.

I can't tell if the Betty Ong is a factitious hero or a real person existed. However I do like to to point out a few facts here in your analysis.

1. You followed a trail, i.e., the last or surname Ong. This could be a holy grail or rabbit trail to a hole. Asians tend to change their surname over time which oftentimes makes Westerners befuddled with their last name. Ong can also be Ng, the surname that are very prevalent in Chinese diaspora in Malaysia and Singapore, originally from Cantonese speaking part of China. A similar befuddling spelling can also be found in Jackie Chan. Although Jackie uses his last name 陳 as Chan, others use it as Chen. Min-nan speaking Chinese diaspora use as Tan. In their mind, Ng, Ong doesn't matter, neither do Chan, Chen, Tan. As long as they remotely relate to their last name in Mandarin, Chinese people will use it either one in English.

The bottom line is, your might be missing out when you followed your trail of Ong all along with an obsession on O. You didn't expand your research.

2. 1973 or 74 graduation year with let's say 2000, give or take 5 years, which makes the time difference is about 25 years. You expect to see the same person facial features? I agree that we could at least tell if the person is the same by looking at two photos. But it's usually difficult when you compare high school picture with an adult picture where people usually grow really differently. After my high school and went to college, I occasionally visit my high school teachers. Every time I visited, they all mentioned I completely changed my facial structures with more jaw bones sticking out.

Even with your Black Betty Ong photo in 1973 with spectacles and Ole V. photo in 1972 without spectacles, I still can't see if they are the same person. The only thing that stand out is both were Black female. Maybe I can't differentiate Blacks enough? Or I honestly don't think they are the same person. Enlighten me how to differentiate other races like Sherlock Holmes.

3. I didn't have my picture in my high school year book. I intentionally chose not to be a part of it when you feel like you get fed up with the school administration.

4. Why didn't you take an approach that look at the first name Betty basis? Would that consume your energy more?

5. Why didn't you contact one of the Ong family members and ask them if they can provide you with Betty Ong time at the George Washington High school around 1972-1974. As a family member, they must have kept a thing or two about Betty Ong. Instead of asking them "As I don't believe Betty Ong existed, ..." You could take an approach "Since everyone becomes suspicious of the Betty Ong existence, I would very much like to end this controversy and make the hero stand tall if you could kindly provide me with a younger Betty Ong from GWH."

But looks like you love googling instead.

Just my opinion. I'm still open to your investigation which have some plausible explanations. But to convince more with hard evidence, I honestly believe you need more ground work to do.

It is true that a given Chinese surname can be transcribed in multiple different ways depending on dialect and personal preference, but this discussion is somewhat beside the point.

A surname is typically transcribed only ONCE, typically at the time of immigration. Once established in the U.S., Chinese immigrants rarely CHANGE the spelling of their last name.

As an exception, an immigrant surnamed Ng might decide to change to the more euphonious Ong which non-Chinese find more intuitive in speech and in writing.

As noted above, it is puzzling that the Chinese surname for Betty Ong is given as “Deng” on Wikipedia. There is no way that Deng could become Ong, regardless of dialect.

A surname is typically transcribed only ONCE, typically at the time of immigration.

EXACTLY!

It's not even specifically about Chinese surnames, I don't think. What it's about is that, typically, when the patriarch of the clan came to America, the guy had some window of opportunity to choose how to trans-literate his name. So, for example, my surname of Revusky is the same name as Revutsky, which is Ukrainian. My grandfather was a Jew from Ukraine, but it has come to my attention that most of the people with that surname are Orthodox Christian Ukrainians.

But, never mind that, Revutsky and Revusky are the same surname originally. Fine, but it's not like I'm going to start writing my last name differently. At different times, I could go by Jonathan or Jon or something else, fine. But I have NEVER spelled my surname differently than how my paternal grandfather chose to spell it. And none of the people who spell their surname Revutsky are going to start writing it the way my name is written without the t! And some people spell the final y as an i. Fine. But they ALWAYS spell their own last name consistently!

And it's exactly the same with the Chinese, I'm sure. The patriarch maybe showed up in America a hundred plus years ago and, at a key moment, had a choice of writing his name one of various ways, like Wong or Wang or Huang or Ong (or maybe the immigration official decided for him) but once it's established, it does not change!!

The whole idea that Betty Ong was Betty Ng in high school and then started spelling her last name differently, just for the pure heck of it, that just does NOT ring true! And there is no evidence for it anyway. As far as I can see, all of this stuff about how Chinese are constantly writing their surnames differently is just a bunch of complete bullshit!

They confuse matters talking about first names. Sure, somebody with a Chinese given name could adopt a western name to fit in. But they don't go around changing their surnames!

In any case, they're saying that the onus is on me to prove that Betty Ng (who looks completely different!) is not the same person as Betty Ong!

Anyway, speaking of choosing names, you seem like a reasonable person Anonymous #249. Why don't you choose some screen name and stick to it? This whole business of trying to keep track of who you're talking to with different numbered Anons, it's just a total cock-up.

There is not a a single major event in history that could not be found to have 100 such inconsistencies. Every person even found guilty of murder would have walked free if they had been tried using Revulsky’ Rules Of Evidence. As for Sherlock, the author of those stories thought

“an observant man might learn by an accurate and systematic examination of all that came in his way” [which] enabled one “to use observation to deduce meaning from an otherwise meaningless fact.”[ In contrast, the natural human tendency was to “spontaneously construct narratives, and firmly believe in their veracity”, which – as Konnikova writes – is exemplified by the cognitive style of Dr. Watson, in which “it is incredibly difficult to resist our desire to form narratives, to tell stories even if they may not be altogether correct, or correct at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Edalji#Conan_Doyle

As his creator admitted, Holmes was an idealised reasoner without light or shade. But we are not in the world that Doyle wrote about (an author writes about the world he would like to live in and his readers buy the book for the same reason dare say) No, we are here groping about and blundering on in an uncertain twilight world in which there is always the chance of us making a mistake, but we must act so there is always a chance of us acting mistakenly. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there no chance of our conclusion being mistaken. Sherlock Holmes would always vote for an acquittal. Meanwhile, back in the real world:-

“In the whole vast dome of living nature there reigns an open violence. A kind of prescriptive fury which arms all the creatures to their common doom: as soon as you leave the inanimate kingdom you find the decree of violent death inscribed on the very frontiers of life. You feel it already in the vegetable kingdom: from the great catalpa to the humblest herb, how many plants die and how many are killed; but, from the moment you enter the animal kingdom, this law is suddenly in the most dreadful evidence. A Power, a violence, at once hidden and palpable. . . has in each species appointed a certain number of animals to devour the others. . . And who [in this general carnage] exterminates him who will exterminate all others? Himself. It is man who is charged with the slaughter of man. . . The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death.” (Joseph de Maistre)

And so the logical positivism of demanding perfect evidence means choosing to be the victim rather than the executioner.

Good reply, but a nitpick: Winston Smith actually knew something was wrong and, although he ultimately failed, did rebel/resist in some way. The hysterical gatekeepers who crop up here are more like Smith’s neighbor, Parsons, a militantly stupid man whose only joy in life was regurgitating The Party’s lies.

Your are right, Parsons is more appropriate.

Parson:

One physiologically bound to the official narrative irrespective of its validity. Parson will enthusiastically regurgitate the ON as gospel and ignore anything that contradics it.

As far as a Parsons is concerned the official narrative is reality. Anyone not in line with the ON is on the outside of reality, those outside this reality are often derided as conspiracy theorist.

To a Parsons, the only reason why one would disagree with the ON is stupidity, ignorance, gullibility or dishonesty.

Parsons who put time into debunking alternatives to the ON call themselves skeptics or debunkers. Instead of simply dismissing those who counter the ON claims as conspiracy theorist, crackpots and loons skeptics/debukers will research counter ON claims and give reasons why such claims are wrong.

I don't happen to believe the official narrative regarding 9/11. However, I did lose a business colleague in the Pennsylvania crash, so I know that crash happened and my friend died in it. I still occasionally hear word of his widow.

I get pissed off when loons like Revusky waste my time with bullshit like this latest. I get really pissed off when Revusky and his ilk spew nonsense that can be used to discredit all those who have rationally based doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.

Fortunately, I'll remember this experience and in the future avoid anything he writes.

Revusky waste my time with bullshit like this latest.

Whatever you may think of Revusky’s CONCLUSIONS, he fully documented his methods and resources in the article. In other words, Revusky he has been careful NOT to waste a reader’s time trying to figure out what he did or didn’t do to arrive at his conclusions.

It would be great if our formerly great newspapers were even a third as careful and diligent as Revusky.

A person who reasoned in his everyday life like Revulsky does about 9/11 would last about 15 minutes before he was taken advantage of by others. A nation state does not think it's own worst enemy is its own leadership any more than a normal man who regains consciousness in the gutter covered in blood thinks it is quite possible that their own Death Instinct grabbed control of their brain and tried to kill them. Nation states are like humans, built for surviving. They don't care whether it (whatever "it" is) is true as much as whether it helps them survive. Nation states that don't think like that don't exist, and although the same is not always true of individual humans, those exceptions are not normal and probably headed for a very sticky end.

The picture of the initial 20' diameter hole in the Pentagon facade is still available on the internet. Supposedly it was caused by a low flying 757 striking the facade. So what happened to the wings, engines, fin, rudder, stab, elevators which could not possibly have fit through the hole? Where is the metal debris which should be plastered and sprinkled everywhere? Where are the cadavers and personal belongings? This is what full spectrum dominance and total information awareness looks like domestically........

Someone has certainly gone to a lot of trouble to conjure out of nothing this "ostensible" family.

Harry Ong, Sr. Passed away peacefully at home on Feb. 24, with his loving family by his side. Harry Sr., 86, was the beloved husband of Yee Gum Oy, and would have been married 59 years in March. Loving father to Harry Jr. and Dorothy Ong,Cathie Ann and Edward Herrera, Gloria Ann Ong-Woo, and Betty Ann Ong, [!!!] who predeceased him. Cherished grandfather to Dean and Kameron Joelson, Matthew Ong, Lauren Woo and Austin Woo. Also survived by many loving families and friends and will be greatly missed by all. Relatives and friends are cordially invited to attend a Visitation on March 9 from 6pm to 8pm, and Funeral on March 10 at 10am, both at the Tiffany Chapel at Cypress Lawn Funeral Home, 1370 El Camino Real, Colma, CA. Interment , Cypress Lawn Cemetery in Colma, CA. The family would also like to thank Dr. Bertrand Tuan and the wonderful staff of Pacific Hematology Oncology, San Francisco, CA. In lieu of flowers, donations would be sincerely appreciated for the Betty Ann Ong Foundation, P.O. Box 1108, Bakersfield, CA 93302.

Published in San Francisco Chronicle from Mar. 4 to Mar. 5, 2007

If Betty Ann Ong didn't exist, then none of these other people could exist either, since they all are (or were) in a position to confirm her existence.

Massive operations by secret service organizations are typically protected by MULTIPLE LEVELS of misdirection.

For example, it is quite conceivable that there was an actual Betty Ong who was murdered on or around 9/11, but she went to a different school, or grew up in another city. The reference to a specific high school (and the “Black Betty” shenanigans) would be intentionally set up to create confusion.

Alternatively, of course, there never was a “Betty Ong” and the later evidence is designed to mislead researchers into believing that they are tantalizingly close to the solution where they are actually on a wild goose chase.

Interesting article. My experience is that fake identities are created by using the name of a person who legitimately disappeared. One example I know about was a kidnapped German biologist who was brought to America and given the name of a soldier who died in the Korean War. The Navy allowed such extensive access to their records that it was possible for a certain agent to erase mention of his death and add to his history. After his supposed discharge, his history continues in a far away city where no one would know who he was. So the back history exists, but he was still a fake person.

Perhaps Betty emigrated to China. An American educated and skilled person would have been in demand there. Possibly she just needed to be disappeared because of some TLA (CIA/NSA/etc/etc) situation.

I don't think there is any way of knowing for sure whether the Betty Ong who died on 9/11 was a fake or not. I am skeptical that there would have been cell phone calls from a plane in 2001. The technology was far less advanced than today. And the way those three towers fell straight down hours after the impact of two airplanes leaves me incredulous that anyone could believe the official story.

You don’t really pay attention do you. Revusky pursued totally inadequate research and didn’t even think of the name being changed, in this case only slightly but critically. As to the phone calls they weren’t from ordinary cell phones (which might or might not have been close enough to transmission towers) and you can read the very plausible transcripts by an easy search. BTW why do you think there have been none of American Airlines 1000s of employees to say there was no Betty Ong?

Given the prima facie plausibility of the transcripts of the calls from Flight 11 and the absence of any whistleblower from American Airlines to say there was no Betty Ong flight attendant you really have a lot of work to do to persuade people of your 9/11 fantasy. That no such Betty Ong existed would certainly be a good reason to persist with your inquiries. But you have done about a tenth of the work needed. Starting with the Wikipedia information you could check with all sorts of birth, deaths, marriages, bankruptcies, donations to political parties, property records etc and telephone directories could help you make televant calls. As you think the digitised Year Book records have been altered - and you think you are doing something important - it is surely elementary to (a) find out who bought the last originals available, (b) advertise for originals - or the viewing of one for $100, (c) try contacting some of those on the relevant Year Book pages even if it means making 50 cold calls to hit one jàckpot.

Alternatively you could concede that you lacked investigative skills and imagination and so got it wrong. Are you not kicking yourself for not thinking the name might have been different? Maybe because there was some cranky nerd who insisted that Ong must be wrong and would properly be Ng..... or just because the adolescent Betty chose to indicate solidarity with Vietnamese refugees. And maybe the family name was still Ng then...

Are you not kicking yourself for not thinking the name might have been different?

Good point but Revusky is subjected to kicking by other so much that he gives himself automatic dispensation and does not kick himself. Any criticism and he doubles down. People are not driven by external realities but by the internal ones. He does not care about the truth more than anybody else but most of all he cares about being right or rather proving his opponents being wrong. Ron Unz kind of challenged him and it hit the soft spot. You will see that as this comment thread evolves he won’t be reasonable or won’t take the constructive criticisms. In the end he will threaten to dox us all, even those who sympathize with him.

The point of the UNZ review is to provide a place for the presentation of unconventional viewpoints. They provide a counterpoint to the propaganda spewing from the media.

There is an excellent, well designed commentary section where people can discuss and disssect the article, challenge assertions and attempt to discern the truth. Revusky may be disagreeable, neurotic and wrong, but Unz put him back here because his ideas deserve consideration.

God knows most colleges and universities are not doing it, despite it being their reason to exist.

Revusky may be disagreeable, neurotic and wrong, but Unz put him back here because his ideas deserve consideration.

I don’t know Unz that well, but I’ve been around UR in various guises for many years. While serious, even academically so, in many respects, Unz has an unconventional sense of humor that causes him to, on infrequent occasion, publish the wackadoodles of type Revusky.

And look at what consortium of brother-wackies crawled, shimmied, soared, oozed, deplaned, trekked, hiked out of the woodwork to comment, screeching like harpies.

'And look at what consortium of brother-wackies crawled, shimmied, soared, oozed, deplaned, trekked, hiked out of the woodwork to comment, screeching like harpies.'

Another very bitter failed writer of the Great American Novel?
The all-wise Buddha of, I don't know, Seattle, Brooklyn, Philadelphia?
You're big and mysterious, 'coming in different guises' to UR over so many years and seasons, watching the great cretinous tides ebb and flow, far above it all...

There is not a a single major event in history that could not be found to have 100 such inconsistencies. Every person even found guilty of murder would have walked free if they had been tried using Revulsky' Rules Of Evidence. As for Sherlock, the author of those stories thought

“an observant man might learn by an accurate and systematic examination of all that came in his way” [which] enabled one “to use observation to deduce meaning from an otherwise meaningless fact.”[ In contrast, the natural human tendency was to “spontaneously construct narratives, and firmly believe in their veracity”, which – as Konnikova writes – is exemplified by the cognitive style of Dr. Watson, in which “it is incredibly difficult to resist our desire to form narratives, to tell stories even if they may not be altogether correct, or correct at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Edalji#Conan_Doyle

As his creator admitted, Holmes was an idealised reasoner without light or shade. But we are not in the world that Doyle wrote about (an author writes about the world he would like to live in and his readers buy the book for the same reason dare say) No, we are here groping about and blundering on in an uncertain twilight world in which there is always the chance of us making a mistake, but we must act so there is always a chance of us acting mistakenly. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there no chance of our conclusion being mistaken. Sherlock Holmes would always vote for an acquittal. Meanwhile, back in the real world:-

“In the whole vast dome of living nature there reigns an open violence. A kind of prescriptive fury which arms all the creatures to their common doom: as soon as you leave the inanimate kingdom you find the decree of violent death inscribed on the very frontiers of life. You feel it already in the vegetable kingdom: from the great catalpa to the humblest herb, how many plants die and how many are killed; but, from the moment you enter the animal kingdom, this law is suddenly in the most dreadful evidence. A Power, a violence, at once hidden and palpable. . . has in each species appointed a certain number of animals to devour the others. . . And who [in this general carnage] exterminates him who will exterminate all others? Himself. It is man who is charged with the slaughter of man. . . The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death.” (Joseph de Maistre)

And so the logical positivism of demanding perfect evidence means choosing to be the victim rather than the executioner.

Oh dear! As one who takes yourself so seriously, with a damn good third class mind, aren't you thoroughly embarrassed at having effectually endorsed Revusky's skimpily inadequate researches - about 10 per cent of what was needed and that's without counting his lack of imagination about the name being Ng?

An extensive clip from Ong’s call to headquarters was used for the beginning of the 2012 film Zero Dark Thirty. The clip was used without attribution, and without the consent of Ong’s family. They requested that Warner Brothers, the film’s U.S. distributor, make a charitable donation in her name, credit her onscreen,…

A number of people are saying this, but I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why they think this would resolve the matter. If Betty Ong really existed and was this person's sister, they would say: "Yes, of course, I had a sister named Betty who died in a plane on 9/11"

AND... if these people were just crisis actors, they would say the EXACT SAME THING!

Like, you think maybe the various board members of the Betty Ann Ong Foundation will, when contacted, come clean and admit that Betty Ong never existed.

It doesn't seem likely to me, but if (unlke me) you think that is a promising approach, then contact them yourself! And report back!

I don't happen to believe the official narrative regarding 9/11. However, I did lose a business colleague in the Pennsylvania crash, so I know that crash happened and my friend died in it. I still occasionally hear word of his widow.

I get pissed off when loons like Revusky waste my time with bullshit like this latest. I get really pissed off when Revusky and his ilk spew nonsense that can be used to discredit all those who have rationally based doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.

Fortunately, I'll remember this experience and in the future avoid anything he writes.

I’m afraid this is a non-sequitur; an acquaintance of yours went missing on 9-11, therefore the (alleged) Shanksville plane crash was real?

She doesn't present well and she can have a very literal, narrow, visual focus. For example, when she says that she doesn't think there was much heat at ground zero and presents as evidence that workman's boots couldn't have melted because if the steel toes melted, it would have roasted their feet, she misses the point.

The soles of the boots were melting not the steel toes. The neoprene or rubber sole melted making it hard to stay balanced. Which is important when you are walking around on a mound of rusty razor blades. She also ignores copious eye-witness accounts of the heat.

She doesn't think the jets could penetrate the building. But at high speed they could. The same way you can stab a pencil through a screen door. It doesn't have to "cut" the steel. Brute force can break the steel.

Some parts she gets right though. The toasted cars are interesting. The hurricane is interesting. Her book presents some of the best visual evidence available. Too bad people can't seem to argue rationally (Judy and Fetzer) and sometimes let their emotions/egos get in control.

She also filed a lawsuit challenging the official story, which is more than most people have done.

You’re talking about Judy Woods? She herself does not inspire much confidence, but the DEW theory is worth investigating, something centered around nearby Brookhaven Labs in Long Island is a definite candidate.

And it was slammed into by a building weighing 500,000 tons. Conservation of momentum and all that. A bug hits a car with the same force that the car hits the bug, which do you suppose will better weather the impact?

What is it about what used to be called the “Third Law of Motion” that these people do not get? Ballistics proves conclusively that the “airliner penetrating structural steel and concrete floor pans” is bollocks. Imagine if anyone tried to market a magic armor piercing round composed of a thin aluminum jacket and a hollow core.!

Magic armour-piercing rounds do not typically weigh 130 tons or whatever the weight of airliners on 9-11 was. Airliners flying into high towers is a sufficiently rare phenomenon that it may be difficult to be polemical about what would or would not happen, but I don't think the building would remain pristine.

Betty Ong was Betty Ng. Ng and Ong are transliterations of the same Chinese name.

Well, that is not accurate. They potentially can be, but usually are not. In any case, the above is really sophistry. For instance, Miller and Müller are the same surnames etymologically, and, at key moments in history, apparently a lot of Americans who were Müller decided to spell their names Miller. However, from the point of view of documentation, they really are two different surnames.

Now, somebody who was christened Juan or Giovanni might try to fit in and go by the English version John, sure. But family names don't work that way. Once a family decides to spell their family name one way, they are typically quite consistent about it and there is simply no sign that the Ong family ever spelled their surname any differently from "Ong". This is just an exercise in clutching at straws.

Of course, a name could still be misspelt by accident. However, "Betty Ng" appears in both the 1973 and the 1974 yearbooks by that name. For your theory to be correct, her last name would have to be misspelt both years consecutively in exactly the same way. This is really very unlikely.

She also looks the same,

LOL.

Well, that is just a ridiculous statement. In fact, simply looking at the photo of Betty Ng, it is quite clear that this is a completely different person. The nose and face are all different. It is not really even close.

Interestingly, somebody (who?) put the Betty Ng photo from the 1974 yearbook on the findagrave.com memorial for Betty Ong. That is right here:

I had a friend in college who was obviously chinese but had a korean last name because immigration messed up her family name when her parents came to the US. She decided to change it back later. I don’t know if this is what Betty did but my yearbook has a similar inconsistency because of it.

As for family names. The spelling of my family name has changed 3 time in the past 200 years. I tracked it through census, marriage and death records, personal correspondence etc. My grandfather was the last person who changed it so it is pretty unusual, but I wouldn’t qualify it as an impossibility.

Discounting these possibilities out of hand doesn’t strengthen your argument that Betty is a fictitious person.

I worked with a Chinese woman, her name for us Anglo people was Vicki, but that wasn’t her Chinese name, she was here on a visa program. They chose names that were easier for Americans to pronounce and remember. Maybe she made a phone call and went back to China.

"Ong is a Hokkien romanization of several Chinese surnames: 王 (Wáng in Hanyu Pinyin), 汪 (also Wāng), 黃 (traditional) or 黄 (simplified; Huáng); and 翁 (Weng). Ong or Onge is also a surname of English origin, with earliest known records found in Western Suffolk taxation records from ca. 1280 AD."

I worked with a Chinese woman, her name for us Anglo people was Vicki, but that wasn't her Chinese name, she was here on a visa program. They chose names that were easier for Americans to pronounce and remember. Maybe she made a phone call and went back to China.

also from wikipedia

“Ong is a Hokkien romanization of several Chinese surnames: 王 (Wáng in Hanyu Pinyin), 汪 (also Wāng), 黃 (traditional) or 黄 (simplified; Huáng); and 翁 (Weng). Ong or Onge is also a surname of English origin, with earliest known records found in Western Suffolk taxation records from ca. 1280 AD.”

Whatever you may think of Revusky's CONCLUSIONS, he fully documented his methods and resources in the article. In other words, Revusky he has been careful NOT to waste a reader's time trying to figure out what he did or didn't do to arrive at his conclusions.

It would be great if our formerly great newspapers were even a third as careful and diligent as Revusky.

A person who reasoned in his everyday life like Revulsky does about 9/11 would last about 15 minutes before he was taken advantage of by others. A nation state does not think it’s own worst enemy is its own leadership any more than a normal man who regains consciousness in the gutter covered in blood thinks it is quite possible that their own Death Instinct grabbed control of their brain and tried to kill them. Nation states are like humans, built for surviving. They don’t care whether it (whatever “it” is) is true as much as whether it helps them survive. Nation states that don’t think like that don’t exist, and although the same is not always true of individual humans, those exceptions are not normal and probably headed for a very sticky end.

So impressed with your political acumen, why you even know the term 'nation-state' (should be a hyphen there for future reference).
Has it occurred to you that nations, even blocks of nations, can be and are run by very tiny, diabolical cabals, closely interlinked families?
I realize you have read things I too once read and which just seem hackneyed expressions now, your nation states are exactly like people and want only their survival. Yes, that's true--if and only if you know, FOR SURE, what these so-called nation-states are. If they are plutocrats, and they simply must be, then it is true that they care only for their own survival, very much at the expense of literally everyone else on the planet. Adam Smith's 'vile maxim': All for us, and nothing for anyone else. But I'm taking from Chomsky, and feel therefore I am on shaky ground...

The only events that are not in doubt with respect to 9/11 is that WTC 1, 2, 6 and 7 were destroyed and that there were explosions of some nature at the Pentagon.

The entire airliner story is complete and utter bullshit, including the Shanksville legend, where an entire commercial airliner is swallowed up by the ground.

The attacks on September 11, 2001 were planned and in the main part carried out by Israeli operatives on the ground, under the watchful eye of the complicit Zionist cabal in NYC and the PNAC signatories in DC. The patsy Arab hijackers were legends created by the Saudis and the Mossad.

Who benefited from the attacks? The neocons, the Israelis, and the Zionists in the US, including Silverstein, who collected billions of dollars in an insurance settlement. Who suffered for the attacks? Very weak non-involved states such as Iraq and Afghanistan- later on, Libya and Syria.

Who in the whole world does not now know this? A certain portion of rapture ready “Dumbericans” and their incredibly naive liberal interventionist brothers in arms.

I suppose it is the certainty lof a religious believer that makes you so careless about choosing words that embody logic and clarity. In any event I am left wondering what you do believe about 9/11 so allow me to begin coming to grips with it by asking whether your description "the Arab patsy hijackers" means you reject the mad ideas of Revusky and some others that there were no airliners flown into the WTC towers? I trust so.

Assuming you are capable of logical thought may I go further and ask whether you agree that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda would have regarded it as a great success to get America involved in a war in Afghanistan? (It will have occurred to you that ObL was well aware of what Vietnam did to America and the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan had done to the USSR).

I don't happen to believe the official narrative regarding 9/11. However, I did lose a business colleague in the Pennsylvania crash, so I know that crash happened and my friend died in it. I still occasionally hear word of his widow.

I get pissed off when loons like Revusky waste my time with bullshit like this latest. I get really pissed off when Revusky and his ilk spew nonsense that can be used to discredit all those who have rationally based doubts about the official 9/11 narrative.

Fortunately, I'll remember this experience and in the future avoid anything he writes.

Why is there no “Betty Ong Remembered 15 Years Later” feature e.g. in the National Enquirer?

Because she was just one of almost 3000 9/11 victims and her life had been completely ordinary before 9/11?
Besides, there are several newsstories of the "Betty Ong remembered" kind, if you look at post 2 in this thread, I linked to one from 2011 which also features Betty Ong's former fiancee (a certain Robert Landrum who even today is easily googleable as involved with some karate studio in Andover, Massachusetts).
And the first story I linked to in post 2 has this about her:
"An avid collector of Beanie Babies toys and Barbie dolls"

At the very least, Revusky's claims "Betty Ong doesn't feel like a real person, no mention of relatives, romantic partners or hobbies" is manifestly untrue. Even casual googling refutes Revusky's claims.

Well, I suppose I should explain my own position…

Back a couple of years ago, Revusky had claimed—based on absolutely zero evidence—that an individual I’d never heard of named “Betty Ong” didn’t really exist, despite the numerous MSM interviews with her friends, close family members, and fiance. I said that sounded crazy to me, and based on presumption I was about 99.9% sure she did exist. In fact, I think I told him I considered it more likely that he himself was a “disinfo agent” than the woman never existed. After his numerous emailed responses became a nuisance, I offered to pay him $10,000 if he would go away and locate some hard evidence that would persuade me that she was actually fictitious, perhaps by getting actual copies of the H.S. yearbook or other things he had started focusing upon.

He recently came back to me, saying he’d now found the yearbook pages online, and that although they did indeed include her name, the photo was wrong, proving that the pages had been forged to cover up the gigantic 9/11 conspiracy. Such a bizarre tongue-in-cheek “forgery” seemed extremely implausible to me, but I did find the mistaken photo sufficiently suspicious that it reduced my confidence of Betty Ong’s existence down to perhaps 80-90%. Since I was too busy to carefully explore his complex argument, I offered to publish an article of his on the subject (if he apologized to Rurik). As I told him, since so many of the other commenters hate him and think he’s crazy, perhaps at least a few of them would be motivated to dig into the matter in considerable detail, allowing me to review the contrasting arguments and decide for myself where the probabilities lay.

Based on what I’ve read so far, I’d say I’m now about 90-95% convinced that Betty Ong probably did exist. Needless to say, I’m not going to pay Jonathan anything unless he comes up with much better evidence for his astonishing claim, though that is still certainly possible.

This is *exactly* the reason I’ve always explicitly emphasized that I do *NOT* personally stand behind any of the articles published on my website…

Based on what I’ve read so far, I’d say I’m now about 90-95% convinced that Betty Ong probably did exist.

Oh really? Out of curiosity, could you explain your reasoning on that?

Now, to be clear, I pose the above question because I am very interested in how you would answer, but as regards the $10,000 wager, it doesn't actually matter that much. The fact of the matter is that this is getting really very cringe-worthy because you are willfully misrepresenting the situation. I will emphasize this key point:

Ron, we did not have any wager over whether Betty Ong, the flight attendant existed. The wager was purely about her presence in the yearbook. And you clearly lost said wager.

This is the precise text from an email of yours on 2 July 2016:

I really think you're totally wasting your time on this nonsense, but if you'd like to take a "bet" how about this. Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates. If her name isn't listed, I'll pay you $10,000. There would still be a very good chance she existed and the newspaper just got the graduation year wrong, but I'd still pay up.

Clearly, by the letter of the text, I won, since there is no Betty Ong in the 1974 yearbook. However, I reason that neither of us are lawyers and we weren't negotiating some contract with super precise language. Thus, I reasoned that if there was a young Betty Ong in the 1973 yearbook, I would concede that you had prevailed. If there was a Beatrice Ong or a Bettina Ong who was credibly the same person as made the phone call from the plane, I'd say, okay, fine. And if it was in the 1973 yearbook or the 1975 yearbook even, as opposed to 1974, that would be okay.

I really try to be reasonable in my dealings with people.

But.. OBVIOUSLY it had to be a younger version of the Betty Ong that we were presented on 9/11. It can't be a black girl! Like, obviously, if I had a wager with somebody that Ron Unz is in some high school yearbook from the seventies, the meaning of the wager is that there is a younger version of you in there. It can't be a completely different person who just happens to have the same name. And obviously a black Ron Unz, or a Chinese Ron Unz is out of the question!

What then happened is that you started arguing with me like some kind of shyster lawyer that since the name was in there (next to a black girl!) that you had not lost the wager!

He recently came back to me, saying he’d now found the yearbook pages online, and that although they did indeed include her name, the photo was wrong, proving that the pages had been forged to cover up the gigantic 9/11 conspiracy.

Ron, this seems mendacious. I never claimed to know for sure why there is a black Betty Ong on that page in the 1973 yearbook. In fact, the best theory I have about that is that it was NOT done by the 9/11 conspirators. Most likely, somebody did it as a "duping delight" prank. But I don't know for sure and I never claimed to know.

Also, I did not claim that "the photo was wrong". In fact, I do not believe that. I believe that the name is wrong! I think the photo on that page, of the black girl, is RIGHT! It is probably the black girl whose last name is Ole in the 1972 yearbook. However, nothing depends absolutely on that either, mind you.

Regardless, Ron, in any permutation of all of this, you clearly lost the wager. You can argue all you want about the letter of what was said, but OBVIOUSLY, the meaning, i.e. the spirit of the wager was that, if we got our hands on the appropriate yearbook, it would clear up the whole question, i.e. there is a younger version of Betty Ong, the Chinese flight attendant, in the appropriate yearbook.

But anyway, by the letter of the wager, you already lost, because the wager was specifically about the 1974 yearbook.

Needless to say, I’m not going to pay Jonathan anything unless he comes up with much better evidence for his astonishing claim,

What "astonishing claim", Ron? The wager was solely about whether the Chinese flight attendant, Betty Ong, is in the appropriate yearbook. She is not. A black girl labeled as Betty Ong clearly doesn't work.

You are talking as if we had some wager, where, in order to win, I had to demonstrate the negative, i.e. to demonstrate that Betty Ong never existed. That is simply not the case.

Moreover, there was never any onus on me to write this article or to argue with a bunch of bad-faithed trolls here in order to win the wager. All I had to do to win the wager was to demonstrate that the Betty Ong of 9/11 is not in the appropriate yearbook.

So, what actually happened is that I sent you the appropriate information, I think on 9 April. It was very well broken down and my estimate is that it would have taken you at most 10-15 minutes to look through it and ascertain what I was telling you. (Basically the information that appears in a more polished, witty form in the article above.) You then responded indignantly that you didn't have the time to go through the information I sent you.

Of course, this is typical Ronnie Unz bullshit, that when you are cornered in a debate, you start saying you don't have time to reply. I'm too busy, I have my work to get back to, blah blah... This is your shtick, and, as far as I can tell, you never concede a debating point. You just always walk away from a debate. Okay, be that way, but the problem in this instance, is that you seemed to lack the situational awareness to realize that if you declined to look at the information I sent you, you were automatically conceding that you had lost the wager.

I mean, that's how it works. If we play tennis and I serve and you don't make any attempt to return serve, you conceded the point. I told you this. I guess (like Betty Ong) you never played any sports in school and don't understand basic things like this.

But anyway, all of this business of me writing an article and all that, I did that because, finally, it struck me as something interesting to do and that it could be interesting for readers and so forth. You seemed to believe at this point that you had not lost the wager and it was hanging in the balance based on reaction to the article and basically, you started clutching at straws in some weird way.

But, to me, frankly, it was always about 1000% obvious that, even before I wrote the article, you had already effectively conceded the wager. I sent you the information, you basically declined to look at it, which is just as well, because if you looked at it, you'd see that you clearly lost. There is no Chinese Betty Ong in any of these yearbooks.

You can't really do deep-water fishing in a kiddie pool...

And, as I said earlier, there is no Beatrice Ong, no Bettina Ong. And her siblings, who supposedly went to the same school, aren't in any yearbook either! Even the minimal life details of these people that we have (which is practically nothing) even this little bit doesn't check out! So you didn't just lose the wager, frankly. You lost at like a 1000% level!

So, that's where we're at. Leading to the question, Ron: when are you going to simply going to pay up?

And I should add one more aspect of my “presumptive” case for Betty Ong’s existence…

I’m certainly not familiar with the details of 9/11, but my impression is that there were something like 5-10 supposed phone calls from the hijacked planes. Now I think the “9/11 Truthers” argue that these phone calls were all faked by the “conspirators.” Maybe they were and maybe they weren’t, but—aside now from the Betty Ong case—no one has ever suggested that that those alleged callers weren’t actually real-life people.

So why would the “conspirators” fake almost all of the calls from real people, but then also invent a fictitious Betty Ong for just one of them? That latter step required them to enlist all of Betty Ong’s supposed family members and friends in the “conspiracy,” obviously making it much more complex and vulnerable, especially given her high profile as a victim. Plus they then had the need to forge H.S. yearbook pages over 16 years after the attacks. Very odd behavior for even semi-competent “conspirators”…

I’ll just put these questions out to 9/11 experts, which excludes myself…

To find out whether or not the official story holds water, the best thing one can do is simply forget about half-baked stories like this one and just stick to the physical evidence. A very good exposition can be found on the website of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/

This website has been endorsed by about 3000 members of both professions - these people know what is and what is not physically possible when it comes to collapsing buildings.

Among many other compelling items, the collection features a very solid scientific paper that shows directly and unambiguously the presence of explosives in the dust produced by the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. A direct link to the paper is here

http://tinyurl.com/wtc-dust-thermite

In this study, small chips of unreacted explosive could be extracted from the dust, characterised by chemical and microscopic analysis, and ignited by heating to 420 degrees centigrade. Unlike jet fuel, this kind of explosive/incendiary (nanothermite) is known to melt steel, and it thus can account for the otherwise unexplained observations of molten metal immediately before the collapse and also for a considerable time afterwards.

Just invest two hours or so - the question is more than important enough to merit this much time from even the busiest individuals - and for these two hours, suspend disbelief, and set aside all questions about actors and their motives, ethics, and honesty. Focus on this question only: what do the demonstrable physical facts indicate about possible mechanisms of collapse? If you approach this question with an open mind, you should find the answer to be quite clear and compelling.

I am not a 9/11 expert but I try to use deductive reasoning. Maybe, one of the "phone callers" would be high profiled and turned into a Joan of Arc saint. So that person would need to be without flaws or bad past events. That is not possible to find such a person in present America. Not a real person

Now I think the “9/11 Truthers” argue that these phone calls were all faked by the “conspirators.”

Well, you can stop thinking that. No serious truther I know of would claim that calls made from a plane's satellite phone were necessarily fake, however convincingly other facts pointed in that direction.
What are 99.999% necessarily fake are any calls purportedly made from cellphones. As soon as you know how a cell system works, you can see that aircraft calls are impossible. I have tried many times, and while a signal may show as present, no call has ever actually connected until we're almost on the ground. Even then, I only ever got the other phone's ring tone and never actually conversed.

Here's the highly truncated, and somewhat dated, reasons why:
[a] cell tower antennas concentrate their radiation pattern in a wide downward cone, wasting as little power as possible firing signal up into the sky where there's no customers. Power costs, and wasted power is wasted money.
[b] a series of mainframe computers manage the individual cells. As you drive along, the system has been following you as you went from one antenna's (cell's) coverage to the next. Your travels are used by the software to predict which cell you'll be in next and prepares the handover in advance of your arrival. If all goes well, and you show up in that cell, the handover is seamless. If you turned left in a way the system didn't predict, the call may get dropped because the cell you entered didn't expect you. Cells are typically quite small, approx 5km radius, so if you're on a highway at 100kmh (62mph) you're being handed over pretty often.
[c] OTOH, at 900kmh (550mph), at altitude, you're not only passing through cells at a clip no system can keep up with, you're in a zone the cell antennas are designed to ignore. When you do see a signal on your little meter, all you're seeing are the lobing artefacts that result from directional antennas.

In 2001, calls were almost all analog, switched digitally. As digital transmission between phone and antenna came on line, these problems were exacerbated but eventually overcome.
Even so, drive at 400kmh, and your calls will drop like flies in sarin gas.

Anecdotally, I've used the Chinese HSR system quite extensively. China's cell system is the best I've encountered anywhere in the world, and I doubt there's a number two. Even so, 3 years ago you couldn't make a call reliably at anything above 200kmh. At 300kmh you could get a few garbled seconds, occasionally. The HSR system has been introducing trains that are effectively a mobile cell tower. I do a run between Wuhan and Shenzhen fairly often and can now enjoy wifi and cell coverage all the way. 3 years ago, no way.

As a further aside, I've been told that the reason we're told to shut down our cell phones on take off & landing has nothing to with the plane's operations. They routinely take lightening strikes resulting in megawatts of EMI. Rather, it's to keep nearby cell systems' computers from going nuts trying to track phones that are going too fast for them to handle, screwing up local phone traffic including the airport itself. I haven't looked into how true that is, but it makes a lot more sense than a few milliwatt level signals mucking up an airliner's operations.

So why would the “conspirators” fake almost all of the calls from real people, but then also invent a fictitious Betty Ong for just one of them? That latter step required them to enlist all of Betty Ong’s supposed family members and friends in the “conspiracy,”

Here is my theory: This thing is misdirection. Because of the excellent work of Rebecca Roth, more people are finding out that the phone calls were made from the ground. There is reason to believe Betty Ong gave us clues to let us know she was under duress while making those calls.

To get ahead ahead of this, TPTB planted this Ongdidntdie nonsense that will go down just as well as noonediedatsandyhook. They want people to associate rubbish with a counter narrative and dismiss it wholesale.

Don't be surprised when the midstream media pick up on this doubleplus heartless story and present ironclad evidence that Betty existed.

"See how evil and wicked theses truthers are? Everyone who goes against the official narrative is just as dastardly as this truther asshole."

Revusky may be disagreeable, neurotic and wrong, but Unz put him back here because his ideas deserve consideration.

I don't know Unz that well, but I've been around UR in various guises for many years. While serious, even academically so, in many respects, Unz has an unconventional sense of humor that causes him to, on infrequent occasion, publish the wackadoodles of type Revusky.

And look at what consortium of brother-wackies crawled, shimmied, soared, oozed, deplaned, trekked, hiked out of the woodwork to comment, screeching like harpies.

I had a friend in college who was obviously chinese but had a korean last name because immigration messed up her family name when her parents came to the US. She decided to change it back later. I don't know if this is what Betty did but my yearbook has a similar inconsistency because of it.

As for family names. The spelling of my family name has changed 3 time in the past 200 years. I tracked it through census, marriage and death records, personal correspondence etc. My grandfather was the last person who changed it so it is pretty unusual, but I wouldn't qualify it as an impossibility.

Discounting these possibilities out of hand doesn't strengthen your argument that Betty is a fictitious person.

What’s with these assumptions that eitherBetty or her parents were immigrants whose names were changed?

And even if Betty herself were an immigrant why would her name be changed in high school or later when a person named Betty Ong may not have become an American employee?

I used to work federal background investigations for a three-letter agency. I had a federal badge and creds. I uncovered a lot of fabricated biographies, identities and information. Individuals need a past. Where were they born? Where did they live? Where did they go to school? It’s hard for certain three-letter agencies to create such a fabricated past like Revusky investigated. OTOH, it’s easy for them to create recent history like the stuff you linked to. Revusky needs to do some gumshoe work now.

re deep state you would think they would plan for these eventualities and have yearbooks and such planted with real or fake people they can use in the future

another theory is ong is a african name and the deep state is stupid and got confused and overlaid a asian story n an african background

as for coincidence that faulty and of course the major logical fallacy of conspiracy theorists coincidences happen all the time and we wouldn’t even notice them if they didnt happen in the one place that drives conspiracy nuts nuts.

that said from the perspective of the current year im pretty embarrassed about all the things i called alex jones for a decade at this point i wouldnt even be surprised if elites started pulling of their masks and revealing their lizard faces everything else is pretty much beyond question

Your comment is barely intelligible. Is it possible for you to ask a high school student to re-write it for you so that it can be clearly understood? Can you possibly gain access to a computer with a shift key?

You don't really pay attention do you. Revusky pursued totally inadequate research and didn't even think of the name being changed, in this case only slightly but critically. As to the phone calls they weren't from ordinary cell phones (which might or might not have been close enough to transmission towers) and you can read the very plausible transcripts by an easy search. BTW why do you think there have been none of American Airlines 1000s of employees to say there was no Betty Ong?

How would any individual employee in a large organization know if someone did or did not work there?

So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

A few questions:

Why didn’t he go to 101 Grove st San Francisco where the marriage divorce birth and death records are kept and ask for the birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born between say 1954 and 1958. Why didn’t he check them all to see if one on them was the child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

If there was no birth certificate why didn’t he go to every county in California and look for the birth certificate of Betty Ong child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

If he wanted to check the high school yearbooks why didn’t he just call or go to Washington high and ask to see an original yearbook. Schools keep original yearbook copies in their libraries.

Why didn’t he also ask for her transcript? Why not ask to look at enrollment records and the graduation announcement.?

He didn’t do any of this. He just putzed on the around on the internet. Last summer someone posted that he worked near the WTC and saw the whole thing. Some idiot internet “researcher” posted a refutation of the eyewitness statement.

That idiot internet researcher whose never been in Manhattan in his life) claimed that he looked on google maps and the eye witness could not have seen the WTC.

Ok, I’ll concede that the phone call to American operations center was a total fake and that Betty Ong never existed.

But why create a fake attendant? Why not just use the name of one of several attendants in that flight???? Every person in that plane either died in the crash, were executed in a convenient CIA mossad execution center or is living in a CIA mossad gulag somewhere.

The phone call could have been faked using the name of any attendant on that plane. Why bother creating a fake attendant????

I’m going north end of May. Maybe I’ll visit 101 Grove st and Washington high to see what I can find.

If I find an Elizabeth Ong, child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong born in 1956 I’ll be sure to let everyone know.

Even 6th graders are told Wikipedia is not reliable. Why do so many adults think they are doing research by reading Wikipedia?

One has to subscribe to use that service (though a free trial is apparently possible), and I'm not going to do that...but maybe some other commenter who already has an account with that service could look it up.

So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

Actually, all I set out to do was to see whether she was in the appropriate high school yearbook, because I had a $10,000 wager with Ron Unz over that precise question.

If it had not been for that, I doubt I would have gone as far with this as I did. In fact, to be honest, I never thought the question was of all that much interest, for the reason I give in the article. There is no particular reason to believe that some character in a fiction is a real person. They might be or they might not be.

And that's about it. But... with Ron Unz dangling $10,000, I finally figured it was worth trying a bit harder. Not just the 10 grand but the fact that Ron was making such a big deal about this. "Oh, Revusky doesn't believe Betty Ong is real. What a nutter he is!" Even independently of the ten grand, that kind of shit is tiresome and, obviously, if I could show him up on this, I would!

But again, there is no particular reason to think that any of these characters they present us are real. They might or might not be. How hard should it be, at long last, to understand that finally?

He didn’t do any of this. He just putzed on the around on the internet. Last summer someone posted that he worked near the WTC and saw the whole thing. Some idiot internet “researcher” posted a refutation of the eyewitness statement.

That idiot internet researcher whose [sic] never been in Manhattan in his life) claimed that he looked on google maps and the eye witness could not have seen the WTC. [sic]

Well, what do you know. It looks like my exchange last summer with Shouting Thomas at UR may have have morphed into an urban legend, which anon[257] uses here as the basis for a big bullshit story in a gold frame.

Just to set the record straight, here's that conversation between me and Shouting Thomas from last summer about his claimed sighting of both WTC crashes:

9. Shouting Thomas says:August 14, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT • 100 Words

I had an excellent view of the WTC from my big office windows on 14th St. and 8th Ave.

I watched both planes fly into the WTC.

I held the hand of one of my co-workers whose father was the maintenance supervisor of the TV towers. We watched as her father died.

I was just having a look at that Chelsea neighborhood using Google maps. and I was wondering how you saw United 175 hit the WTC, since from your location, it would appear that the airplane’s approach — and crash — would have been blocked by the WTC itself, as well as other buildings.

I see that 80 8th Ave. is a 20 story, 282-foot, neo-gothic high-rise built in 1929, according to Emporis. The building has some unusual architectural details near its top — like some additional office space was tacked on up there — and would also appear to include Art Deco and Streamline Moderne design elements.

It seems to be the only tall building on the corner of 14th St. and 8th Ave. that could have offices and windows that look toward the WTC, so I’d be interested to learn what floor you were on when you saw both WTC crashes, and any further details you might care to share from this poignant 9/11 experience.

Why didn’t he go to 101 Grove st San Francisco where the marriage divorce birth and death records are kept and ask for the birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born between say 1954 and 1958.

Personal records are no longer made available to third parties by public authorities in CA. However, CA births details were published until 1995, and the Social Security Administration continues to publish death records (now with a 3 year delay).

Land ownership records (e.g. deeds) are publicly available, as are voter registration records.

I do agree that, if not Revusky, someone who lives in the area should make the effort to contact as many classmates of hers as possible, meet them (and have them bring their original yearbook), document everything with photos and video. See if she existed. Enough of internet research, I agree. That said, it seems fairly convincing to me that she's just another bogus piece of a giant bogus puzzle.
It's a political science maxim that 'to tell a big lie often and with a straight face will make it true in the eyes of the public.' I don't know who said that and can't be bothered right now to look it up. But it's absolutely true, as (to my satisfaction) can be seen all around us every day in all our information sources, the newspapers and magazines, the networks and movie biz, and there is no better case study than 911.

If it is the same person, then only two explanations come to mind, both of them rather convoluted: either she had surgery (etc... snip)

Note that the people claiming that this is the same person here are not just claiming that she is the same person but that she is OBVIOUSLY the same person!

In your opinion, could they possibly be saying that in good faith?

Regardless, Ng and Ong are two different names. If you were going to assert that these are the same person, wouldn't the onus be on you to prove that up? They're trying to argue that there is an onus on me to prove that two people (who, let's face it, look pretty different) AND have different last names are not, in fact, the same person!

This is the thing. With these people, there is NEVER any onus on them to prove anything. They always tell some story for which there is no real proof (in this case, that these two people with different names are the same person) and then challenge you to disprove their silly story!

Or she had an accident later in life and had extensive plastic surgery afterwards.

Well, there's no mention of that in any of her (paltry) life history. You'd think that would be worth mentioning, how Betty overcame adversity, blah blah.

But again, it bears repeating: these people are trying to say that this is OBVIOUSLY the same person! Isn't that crazy?

There are enough small resemblances that I’m still on the fence. But you’re right, it is not “obvious.” The mere fact of the many discrepancies about her high school days is odd to say the least, and I would like to know more.

Did I even mention the lack of dark eyebrows in the high school photo? Even if she plucked them in 1973 (and it was in fashion then), they seldom grow back as luxuriantly as they appear in the stewardess photo.

The scar on her upper lip in the stewardess photo is not visible in all the reiterations of the photo online. But it was quite obvious in the one I picked at random, which was on the first row when I googled “Betty Ong 9/11.”

Well, you saw the visible part of the iceberg. In private correspondence, Ron expressed such confidence that the high school yearbook would clear up the question that he wagered $10,000 on this. That, specifically, is why I finally never dropped the question! Because, really, the whole 9/11 thing for anybody who is moderately awake and aware is already such a fraud and an imposture that an extra fake stewardess more or less hardly matters.

But, you know, as you point out, Ron was turning this into some big hairy deal in public. And later, in private, he was so confident about this that he wagered $10K!

Of course, if that had been anybody in the 99% of the population for whom that is a lot of money, then I could have easily dropped the matter. One could take it as being a figure of speech, equivalent to somebody saying in a moment of agitation: "If Betty Ong is not in the yearbook, I'll eat my hat!"

And there's also this matter that Ron was intermittently using this Betty Ong matter as some sort of rhetorical club to beat me over the head with. "Revusky is so crazy that he thinks Betty Ong is not a real person, ya dee da." And, really, that kind of thing does get pretty tiresome. So when you add into the whole issue that Ron was being such a total dick over this, I feel that I should obviously hold him to his end.

But, anyway, to be clear, the $10,000 wager was not about me proving that Betty Ong never existed. That's obviously a tall order. Demonstrating a negative is bound to be difficult. The wager was solely about the high school yearbook. He clearly lost the wager.

In case anybody's wondering (I guess they would be...) Ron has not reached the "acceptance phase" on having lost the wager though. In private email, he seems to be clinging to the idea that somebody here is going to make some miraculous discovery that saves the day -- maybe like the person claiming that this "Betty Ng" is really Betty Ong. But that's a non-starter really. You just have to look at the photo. That's not the same person. And obviously, it is quite unlikely that the girl's name was misspelt in exactly the same way in two (or possibly more) consecutive yearbooks.

FWIW, I used my meagre photoshop skills (actually Corel) and overlaid the earlier photo of V. Ole over the later as a transparency. The shapes and spacing of lips, mouth, eyes and shape of their heads line up almost perfectly. Allowing for the slight difference in head tilt, everything indicates it’s the same girl, minus some baby fat and the afro hairdo.

Wow, that's pretty interesting.

Now, to be clear, figuring out who "Black Betty" is, that's not any absolute requirement anyway. If V. Ole from the 1972 yearbook is the same person who is labeled "Betty Ong" in the 1973 yearbook, then that's kind of like the maraschino cherry on top of the whip cream on top of the sundae.

Obviously, the black girl labeled as "Betty Ong" cannot possibly be the same person as the Chinese ethnic flight attendant who (allegedly) made the phone call on 9/11 -- whoever she is... My current guess is that "Black Betty" is some kind of little in joke from somebody in the know who was in a position to alter the text. Without that little in-joke, there is no Betty Ong anywhere. But again, there is no onus on me to demonstrate anything about who did this or why. The wager was solely about whether the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the question of Betty Ong's existence.

By the way, also, none of her alleged family members (Harry Ong, Cathie Ong, Gloria Ong) are in any of the yearbooks either! I didn't even bother to mention that in the article! For all I know, those people are all just crisis actors.

Instead of putzing about on the internet why didn’t you go to Washington high and ask to look at original copies of the year book? Every high school has them. Why didn’t you claim to be a prospective employer and request her transcript?

Why didn’t you go to the public records building in San Francisco and request her parents marriage certificate and birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born in the mid 1950s?

Why? Why not? Why didn't he? Don't you get it? This isn't about the truth of anything. It is about Revusky the con man trying to get $10,000 out of Ron Unz. Obviously that's not a good idea when he has only half the IQ points though his Dunning-Kruger persona can't really grasp more than the fact that a gentleman of independent means who wants to keep up appearances needs a little more of the ready stuff than Revusky's family provided.

Revusky has carefully analyzed a limited range of materials. At the very least, his observations demand some clarification.

One limitation of this approach is obvious - the analysis is based on scanned versions of the yearbook. Revusky has not attempted to contact a classmate to inspect an original (printed) copy of the yearbook.

If Ong really lived a normal life, she would have been known to neighbors and others who would have been shocked by her dramatic death and for that reason would clearly remember knowing her.

She would also have registered as a voter, owned property, gone to aerobics classes, been a "beneficiary" of a $3.72 class action settlement, etc. Where are those records?

High schools all keep several original copies of each year’s yearbook.

High schools also have enrollment lists, graduation lists and transcripts. Yet Revulsky ignored all those original sources

So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

A few questions:

Why didn’t he go to 101 Grove st San Francisco where the marriage divorce birth and death records are kept and ask for the birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born between say 1954 and 1958. Why didn’t he check them all to see if one on them was the child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

If there was no birth certificate why didn’t he go to every county in California and look for the birth certificate of Betty Ong child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

If he wanted to check the high school yearbooks why didn’t he just call or go to Washington high and ask to see an original yearbook. Schools keep original yearbook copies in their libraries.

Why didn’t he also ask for her transcript? Why not ask to look at enrollment records and the graduation announcement.?

He didn’t do any of this. He just putzed on the around on the internet. Last summer someone posted that he worked near the WTC and saw the whole thing. Some idiot internet “researcher” posted a refutation of the eyewitness statement.

That idiot internet researcher whose never been in Manhattan in his life) claimed that he looked on google maps and the eye witness could not have seen the WTC.

Ok, I’ll concede that the phone call to American operations center was a total fake and that Betty Ong never existed.

But why create a fake attendant? Why not just use the name of one of several attendants in that flight???? Every person in that plane either died in the crash, were executed in a convenient CIA mossad execution center or is living in a CIA mossad gulag somewhere.

The phone call could have been faked using the name of any attendant on that plane. Why bother creating a fake attendant????

I’m going north end of May. Maybe I’ll visit 101 Grove st and Washington high to see what I can find.

If I find an Elizabeth Ong, child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong born in 1956 I’ll be sure to let everyone know.

Even 6th graders are told Wikipedia is not reliable. Why do so many adults think they are doing research by reading Wikipedia?

Why didn’t he go to 101 Grove st San Francisco where the marriage divorce birth and death records are kept and ask for the birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born between say 1954 and 1958.

Regarding her birth record, on that Findagrave memorial site there’s a link to ancestry.com, which supposedly has info about that:

One has to subscribe to use that service (though a free trial is apparently possible), and I’m not going to do that…but maybe some other commenter who already has an account with that service could look it up.

One cannot make phone calls with a mobile phone from a passenger plane, as MH370 demonstrated.
The second pilot tried to use his phone, made contact, but when he began to speak the plane already was too far from the ground antennae.
The software is too slow, it functions with cars and trains.

In the Hollywood movie over the Pennsylvania plane, that never crashed there, according to the coroner it 'atomised' in the air, therefore the inflight phones were used.

Then the question how the fake phone conversations could be, well, long before Sept 11 the USA already had voice cloning sofware, the software makes it possible after just a short time of recording of any voice, to construct any message.

She didn’t use a cell phone. She made a direct call to American Airlines operations using a phone on the plane installed so crew could communicate directly with the operations center if necessary.

Back a couple of years ago, Revusky had claimed---based on absolutely zero evidence---that an individual I'd never heard of named "Betty Ong" didn't really exist, despite the numerous MSM interviews with her friends, close family members, and fiance. I said that sounded crazy to me, and based on presumption I was about 99.9% sure she did exist. In fact, I think I told him I considered it more likely that he himself was a "disinfo agent" than the woman never existed. After his numerous emailed responses became a nuisance, I offered to pay him $10,000 if he would go away and locate some hard evidence that would persuade me that she was actually fictitious, perhaps by getting actual copies of the H.S. yearbook or other things he had started focusing upon.

He recently came back to me, saying he'd now found the yearbook pages online, and that although they did indeed include her name, the photo was wrong, proving that the pages had been forged to cover up the gigantic 9/11 conspiracy. Such a bizarre tongue-in-cheek "forgery" seemed extremely implausible to me, but I did find the mistaken photo sufficiently suspicious that it reduced my confidence of Betty Ong's existence down to perhaps 80-90%. Since I was too busy to carefully explore his complex argument, I offered to publish an article of his on the subject (if he apologized to Rurik). As I told him, since so many of the other commenters hate him and think he's crazy, perhaps at least a few of them would be motivated to dig into the matter in considerable detail, allowing me to review the contrasting arguments and decide for myself where the probabilities lay.

Based on what I've read so far, I'd say I'm now about 90-95% convinced that Betty Ong probably did exist. Needless to say, I'm not going to pay Jonathan anything unless he comes up with much better evidence for his astonishing claim, though that is still certainly possible.

This is *exactly* the reason I've always explicitly emphasized that I do *NOT* personally stand behind any of the articles published on my website...

Based on what I’ve read so far, I’d say I’m now about 90-95% convinced that Betty Ong probably did exist.

Oh really? Out of curiosity, could you explain your reasoning on that?

Now, to be clear, I pose the above question because I am very interested in how you would answer, but as regards the $10,000 wager, it doesn’t actually matter that much. The fact of the matter is that this is getting really very cringe-worthy because you are willfully misrepresenting the situation. I will emphasize this key point:

Ron, we did not have any wager over whether Betty Ong, the flight attendant existed. The wager was purely about her presence in the yearbook. And you clearly lost said wager.

This is the precise text from an email of yours on 2 July 2016:

I really think you’re totally wasting your time on this nonsense, but if you’d like to take a “bet” how about this. Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates. If her name isn’t listed, I’ll pay you $10,000. There would still be a very good chance she existed and the newspaper just got the graduation year wrong, but I’d still pay up.

Clearly, by the letter of the text, I won, since there is no Betty Ong in the 1974 yearbook. However, I reason that neither of us are lawyers and we weren’t negotiating some contract with super precise language. Thus, I reasoned that if there was a young Betty Ong in the 1973 yearbook, I would concede that you had prevailed. If there was a Beatrice Ong or a Bettina Ong who was credibly the same person as made the phone call from the plane, I’d say, okay, fine. And if it was in the 1973 yearbook or the 1975 yearbook even, as opposed to 1974, that would be okay.

I really try to be reasonable in my dealings with people.

But.. OBVIOUSLY it had to be a younger version of the Betty Ong that we were presented on 9/11. It can’t be a black girl! Like, obviously, if I had a wager with somebody that Ron Unz is in some high school yearbook from the seventies, the meaning of the wager is that there is a younger version of you in there. It can’t be a completely different person who just happens to have the same name. And obviously a black Ron Unz, or a Chinese Ron Unz is out of the question!

What then happened is that you started arguing with me like some kind of shyster lawyer that since the name was in there (next to a black girl!) that you had not lost the wager!

He recently came back to me, saying he’d now found the yearbook pages online, and that although they did indeed include her name, the photo was wrong, proving that the pages had been forged to cover up the gigantic 9/11 conspiracy.

Ron, this seems mendacious. I never claimed to know for sure why there is a black Betty Ong on that page in the 1973 yearbook. In fact, the best theory I have about that is that it was NOT done by the 9/11 conspirators. Most likely, somebody did it as a “duping delight” prank. But I don’t know for sure and I never claimed to know.

Also, I did not claim that “the photo was wrong”. In fact, I do not believe that. I believe that the name is wrong! I think the photo on that page, of the black girl, is RIGHT! It is probably the black girl whose last name is Ole in the 1972 yearbook. However, nothing depends absolutely on that either, mind you.

Regardless, Ron, in any permutation of all of this, you clearly lost the wager. You can argue all you want about the letter of what was said, but OBVIOUSLY, the meaning, i.e. the spirit of the wager was that, if we got our hands on the appropriate yearbook, it would clear up the whole question, i.e. there is a younger version of Betty Ong, the Chinese flight attendant, in the appropriate yearbook.

But anyway, by the letter of the wager, you already lost, because the wager was specifically about the 1974 yearbook.

Needless to say, I’m not going to pay Jonathan anything unless he comes up with much better evidence for his astonishing claim,

What “astonishing claim”, Ron? The wager was solely about whether the Chinese flight attendant, Betty Ong, is in the appropriate yearbook. She is not. A black girl labeled as Betty Ong clearly doesn’t work.

You are talking as if we had some wager, where, in order to win, I had to demonstrate the negative, i.e. to demonstrate that Betty Ong never existed. That is simply not the case.

Moreover, there was never any onus on me to write this article or to argue with a bunch of bad-faithed trolls here in order to win the wager. All I had to do to win the wager was to demonstrate that the Betty Ong of 9/11 is not in the appropriate yearbook.

So, what actually happened is that I sent you the appropriate information, I think on 9 April. It was very well broken down and my estimate is that it would have taken you at most 10-15 minutes to look through it and ascertain what I was telling you. (Basically the information that appears in a more polished, witty form in the article above.) You then responded indignantly that you didn’t have the time to go through the information I sent you.

Of course, this is typical Ronnie Unz bullshit, that when you are cornered in a debate, you start saying you don’t have time to reply. I’m too busy, I have my work to get back to, blah blah… This is your shtick, and, as far as I can tell, you never concede a debating point. You just always walk away from a debate. Okay, be that way, but the problem in this instance, is that you seemed to lack the situational awareness to realize that if you declined to look at the information I sent you, you were automatically conceding that you had lost the wager.

I mean, that’s how it works. If we play tennis and I serve and you don’t make any attempt to return serve, you conceded the point. I told you this. I guess (like Betty Ong) you never played any sports in school and don’t understand basic things like this.

But anyway, all of this business of me writing an article and all that, I did that because, finally, it struck me as something interesting to do and that it could be interesting for readers and so forth. You seemed to believe at this point that you had not lost the wager and it was hanging in the balance based on reaction to the article and basically, you started clutching at straws in some weird way.

But, to me, frankly, it was always about 1000% obvious that, even before I wrote the article, you had already effectively conceded the wager. I sent you the information, you basically declined to look at it, which is just as well, because if you looked at it, you’d see that you clearly lost. There is no Chinese Betty Ong in any of these yearbooks.

You can’t really do deep-water fishing in a kiddie pool…

And, as I said earlier, there is no Beatrice Ong, no Bettina Ong. And her siblings, who supposedly went to the same school, aren’t in any yearbook either! Even the minimal life details of these people that we have (which is practically nothing) even this little bit doesn’t check out! So you didn’t just lose the wager, frankly. You lost at like a 1000% level!

So, that’s where we’re at. Leading to the question, Ron: when are you going to simply going to pay up?

And her siblings, who supposedly went to the same school, aren’t in any yearbook either! Even the minimal life details of these people that we have (which is practically nothing) even this little bit doesn’t check out! So you didn’t just lose the wager, frankly.

They have maximal life details, in that they actually exist and have addresses and phone numbers. Why not shell out a dollar or so and write them? After all, it's only an investment on a 1M% return.

by the letter of the wager, [Ron Unz] already lost, because the wager was specifically about the 1974 yearbook.

Not so fast. A key term of the wager was this:

Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates.

So Revusky really does need to get hold of an actual hard copy of the yearbook as a precondition to winning the bet.

If her name isn’t listed, I’ll pay you $10,000.

According to Revusky's post, Betty Ong's name IS listed on the digitalized pages, although perhaps falsely inserted and/or falsely associated with the picture of another girl. Revusky's observations suggest - but do not prove - that Betty Ong's name

If - as Revusky's observations suggest - Betty Ong's name is not listed in the 1974 hard copy, then he should win.

One would hope that both of parties will be gentlemanly rather than pedantic in interpreting the terms left unstated in the exchange - i.e., Revusky concedes that he loses if Betty Ong's name appears in the yearbooks for at least 1973 and perhaps 1975 as well as 1974, and Unz concedes that he loses if Betty Ong's name appears in the hard copy yearbook juxtaposed with the picture of the "black Betty Ong" rather than a Chinese girl, even though technically Betty Ong's "name" would be in the yearbook under this scenario.

This could be the beginning of a fascinating race. Let's keep to 19th century rules and decorum, like the wager made among members of a gentlemen's club in "Around the World in 80 Days."

I regard and consider his opening statement as and to be a public apology:

“As one of the conditions of considering publication of this article, Ron Unz has required me to personally apologize to commenter Rurik for having previously threatened to “dox” him based on our private correspondence. I am therefore providing that apology, and also sincerely promising to make no such threats nor take such actions against him or any other commenters here in the future.”

The utilitarian defense of and justification for free speech is as follows:

Case 1: The minority view turns out to be true (e.g. Galileo’s statement that the earth revolves around the sun) and the majority view (the earth-centered universe) is false. In this case, it should be obvious that allowing the minority view to be expressed is beneficial to the whole of our society.

Case 2: The minority view is partially true and partially false. For example, suppose one were to argue that evolution never occurred. Even though this claim defies both a lot of evidence which supports various theories of evolution and it also brings the theory of natural selection under perhaps unjustifiable scrutiny, it nevertheless forces defenders of of various theories of evolution to reexamine both their methods (e.g. carbon dating) and their theoretical commitments (e.g. micro vs. macro evolution). Since the vast majority of social issues, and many accepted scientific theories (e.g. “Big Bang” theory) have at least a ‘touch of gray’, hearing a variety of views forces those who defend them to sharpen and enliven their arguments.

Case 3: The minority view is false and the received view is true. For example, suppose a scholar were to write a book defending the thesis that slavery never happened in the United States. Why should we even tolerate such an outlandish view?

1. Even though the scholar’s claims are false, again this forces us to revisit and perhaps rediscover much of the evidence we have documenting the history of slavery. This in turn informs both the way we do history, the way we accept truth claims, and the way we view the present.

2. The falseness of the scholar’s claims actually strengthens many of our commonly received views about not just the fact of slavery, but it’s legacy also.

It seems to me that the wager stands undecided until all conditions are met. One of the conditions is that she (name and photo) appear in an original hard copy of the yearbook. All kinds of shenanigans go on on the internet, just as we've seen. IOW, you ain't quite there yet.

As for all the hoopla about names, I assume that in the US one can have but one legal name at any given time. Having 2 passports, or 2 driver's licenses under 2 different names, 2 credit cards, etc etc, simultaneously, or getting your kid registered in a school with a name different from that on their birth certificate seems like a recipe for legal chaos. EG: Having two driver licenses under "Ong" and under "Ng" is not possible except through fraud.

If so, "Ong" & "Ng" may be equivalent in Hakka/Cantonese or whatever, but they're not legally interchangeable in the US.

The yearbook would presumably have drawn the names from the school's official roll, which would contain the legal names as they appeared on the birth certificates and primary school records of their registered students. So, if Betty Ng was registered under that name, she either carried that name until changing it to "Ong" some time later, or she's a different person. Likewise her siblings.

Parenthetically, it would be unusual that she would use the name "Ng" if the rest of her family used "Ong", which is why I asked above whether her siblings were to found in the yearbooks under "Ng". That her entire family, including parents went by the name "Ong" and were not found under that name in the yearbooks, suggests that they either:
[a] are to be found under "Ng", and
[b] they all legally changed their names to "Ong" sometime after the kids left high school, or
[c] they're not to be found under "Ng" or "Ong", in which case Betty Ng is almost certainly not our gal.

So, you should be able to shed considerable light on the likelihood of Betty Ng being the famous Betty Ong by looking for her siblings under the "Ng" name in the yearbooks, as you did under the "Ong" name.

If they're there, Betty Ng looks to be the future Betty Ong. If they're not to be found either, she's almost certainly just a statistical blip.

Unfortunately, the school seems to have an unusually high percentage of Asians, so I'd expect an overabundance of "Ng"s given its popularity amongst the Fujian and Guangdong diaspora. That may complicate matters to the point where no verdict beyond reasonable doubt can be had.

So who made up the transcript of the FA’s call to the operations center? Regardless of who made the call, or didn’t make the call, the transcript was recorded and made by American Airlines.

Better investigate how the transcript was faked from the operations center and who faked it. Have any of the internet researchers ever tried to debunk the existence of the 3 operations people on the transcript?

Has anyone tried to prove no one at American operations center spoke with anyone on that flight?

While my attitude on the research is less abrasive than others. I think the real press would have been to obtain an actual yearbook of the years in question. And to have done so very low key so as not to taint the process.

Then of course there is locating classmates. That an echoing obtaining transcripts, though I prefer a route that doesn’t trounce on “due process”.

I personally know a few immigrants that have changed their name several years after arrival. Sometimes they want to use their actual name once citizenship is sorted out instead of using what fit in the visa application.

Also perhaps they are tired of people continually being mistaken about their nationality. Going on and on about how it never happens is factually incorrect as people have and do change their names for all sorts of reasons.

And I should add one more aspect of my "presumptive" case for Betty Ong's existence...

I'm certainly not familiar with the details of 9/11, but my impression is that there were something like 5-10 supposed phone calls from the hijacked planes. Now I think the "9/11 Truthers" argue that these phone calls were all faked by the "conspirators." Maybe they were and maybe they weren't, but---aside now from the Betty Ong case---no one has ever suggested that that those alleged callers weren't actually real-life people.

So why would the "conspirators" fake almost all of the calls from real people, but then also invent a fictitious Betty Ong for just one of them? That latter step required them to enlist all of Betty Ong's supposed family members and friends in the "conspiracy," obviously making it much more complex and vulnerable, especially given her high profile as a victim. Plus they then had the need to forge H.S. yearbook pages over 16 years after the attacks. Very odd behavior for even semi-competent "conspirators"...

I'll just put these questions out to 9/11 experts, which excludes myself...

So, who made the recording and transcript of the phone call that never happened.

Who ordered American Airlines to claim the call was made to the operations center and recorded and transcribed there?

Based on what I’ve read so far, I’d say I’m now about 90-95% convinced that Betty Ong probably did exist.

Oh really? Out of curiosity, could you explain your reasoning on that?

Now, to be clear, I pose the above question because I am very interested in how you would answer, but as regards the $10,000 wager, it doesn't actually matter that much. The fact of the matter is that this is getting really very cringe-worthy because you are willfully misrepresenting the situation. I will emphasize this key point:

Ron, we did not have any wager over whether Betty Ong, the flight attendant existed. The wager was purely about her presence in the yearbook. And you clearly lost said wager.

This is the precise text from an email of yours on 2 July 2016:

I really think you're totally wasting your time on this nonsense, but if you'd like to take a "bet" how about this. Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates. If her name isn't listed, I'll pay you $10,000. There would still be a very good chance she existed and the newspaper just got the graduation year wrong, but I'd still pay up.

Clearly, by the letter of the text, I won, since there is no Betty Ong in the 1974 yearbook. However, I reason that neither of us are lawyers and we weren't negotiating some contract with super precise language. Thus, I reasoned that if there was a young Betty Ong in the 1973 yearbook, I would concede that you had prevailed. If there was a Beatrice Ong or a Bettina Ong who was credibly the same person as made the phone call from the plane, I'd say, okay, fine. And if it was in the 1973 yearbook or the 1975 yearbook even, as opposed to 1974, that would be okay.

I really try to be reasonable in my dealings with people.

But.. OBVIOUSLY it had to be a younger version of the Betty Ong that we were presented on 9/11. It can't be a black girl! Like, obviously, if I had a wager with somebody that Ron Unz is in some high school yearbook from the seventies, the meaning of the wager is that there is a younger version of you in there. It can't be a completely different person who just happens to have the same name. And obviously a black Ron Unz, or a Chinese Ron Unz is out of the question!

What then happened is that you started arguing with me like some kind of shyster lawyer that since the name was in there (next to a black girl!) that you had not lost the wager!

He recently came back to me, saying he’d now found the yearbook pages online, and that although they did indeed include her name, the photo was wrong, proving that the pages had been forged to cover up the gigantic 9/11 conspiracy.

Ron, this seems mendacious. I never claimed to know for sure why there is a black Betty Ong on that page in the 1973 yearbook. In fact, the best theory I have about that is that it was NOT done by the 9/11 conspirators. Most likely, somebody did it as a "duping delight" prank. But I don't know for sure and I never claimed to know.

Also, I did not claim that "the photo was wrong". In fact, I do not believe that. I believe that the name is wrong! I think the photo on that page, of the black girl, is RIGHT! It is probably the black girl whose last name is Ole in the 1972 yearbook. However, nothing depends absolutely on that either, mind you.

Regardless, Ron, in any permutation of all of this, you clearly lost the wager. You can argue all you want about the letter of what was said, but OBVIOUSLY, the meaning, i.e. the spirit of the wager was that, if we got our hands on the appropriate yearbook, it would clear up the whole question, i.e. there is a younger version of Betty Ong, the Chinese flight attendant, in the appropriate yearbook.

But anyway, by the letter of the wager, you already lost, because the wager was specifically about the 1974 yearbook.

Needless to say, I’m not going to pay Jonathan anything unless he comes up with much better evidence for his astonishing claim,

What "astonishing claim", Ron? The wager was solely about whether the Chinese flight attendant, Betty Ong, is in the appropriate yearbook. She is not. A black girl labeled as Betty Ong clearly doesn't work.

You are talking as if we had some wager, where, in order to win, I had to demonstrate the negative, i.e. to demonstrate that Betty Ong never existed. That is simply not the case.

Moreover, there was never any onus on me to write this article or to argue with a bunch of bad-faithed trolls here in order to win the wager. All I had to do to win the wager was to demonstrate that the Betty Ong of 9/11 is not in the appropriate yearbook.

So, what actually happened is that I sent you the appropriate information, I think on 9 April. It was very well broken down and my estimate is that it would have taken you at most 10-15 minutes to look through it and ascertain what I was telling you. (Basically the information that appears in a more polished, witty form in the article above.) You then responded indignantly that you didn't have the time to go through the information I sent you.

Of course, this is typical Ronnie Unz bullshit, that when you are cornered in a debate, you start saying you don't have time to reply. I'm too busy, I have my work to get back to, blah blah... This is your shtick, and, as far as I can tell, you never concede a debating point. You just always walk away from a debate. Okay, be that way, but the problem in this instance, is that you seemed to lack the situational awareness to realize that if you declined to look at the information I sent you, you were automatically conceding that you had lost the wager.

I mean, that's how it works. If we play tennis and I serve and you don't make any attempt to return serve, you conceded the point. I told you this. I guess (like Betty Ong) you never played any sports in school and don't understand basic things like this.

But anyway, all of this business of me writing an article and all that, I did that because, finally, it struck me as something interesting to do and that it could be interesting for readers and so forth. You seemed to believe at this point that you had not lost the wager and it was hanging in the balance based on reaction to the article and basically, you started clutching at straws in some weird way.

But, to me, frankly, it was always about 1000% obvious that, even before I wrote the article, you had already effectively conceded the wager. I sent you the information, you basically declined to look at it, which is just as well, because if you looked at it, you'd see that you clearly lost. There is no Chinese Betty Ong in any of these yearbooks.

You can't really do deep-water fishing in a kiddie pool...

And, as I said earlier, there is no Beatrice Ong, no Bettina Ong. And her siblings, who supposedly went to the same school, aren't in any yearbook either! Even the minimal life details of these people that we have (which is practically nothing) even this little bit doesn't check out! So you didn't just lose the wager, frankly. You lost at like a 1000% level!

So, that's where we're at. Leading to the question, Ron: when are you going to simply going to pay up?

And her siblings, who supposedly went to the same school, aren’t in any yearbook either! Even the minimal life details of these people that we have (which is practically nothing) even this little bit doesn’t check out! So you didn’t just lose the wager, frankly.

They have maximal life details, in that they actually exist and have addresses and phone numbers. Why not shell out a dollar or so and write them? After all, it’s only an investment on a 1M% return.

So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

A few questions:

Why didn’t he go to 101 Grove st San Francisco where the marriage divorce birth and death records are kept and ask for the birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born between say 1954 and 1958. Why didn’t he check them all to see if one on them was the child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

If there was no birth certificate why didn’t he go to every county in California and look for the birth certificate of Betty Ong child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

If he wanted to check the high school yearbooks why didn’t he just call or go to Washington high and ask to see an original yearbook. Schools keep original yearbook copies in their libraries.

Why didn’t he also ask for her transcript? Why not ask to look at enrollment records and the graduation announcement.?

He didn’t do any of this. He just putzed on the around on the internet. Last summer someone posted that he worked near the WTC and saw the whole thing. Some idiot internet “researcher” posted a refutation of the eyewitness statement.

That idiot internet researcher whose never been in Manhattan in his life) claimed that he looked on google maps and the eye witness could not have seen the WTC.

Ok, I’ll concede that the phone call to American operations center was a total fake and that Betty Ong never existed.

But why create a fake attendant? Why not just use the name of one of several attendants in that flight???? Every person in that plane either died in the crash, were executed in a convenient CIA mossad execution center or is living in a CIA mossad gulag somewhere.

The phone call could have been faked using the name of any attendant on that plane. Why bother creating a fake attendant????

I’m going north end of May. Maybe I’ll visit 101 Grove st and Washington high to see what I can find.

If I find an Elizabeth Ong, child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong born in 1956 I’ll be sure to let everyone know.

Even 6th graders are told Wikipedia is not reliable. Why do so many adults think they are doing research by reading Wikipedia?

So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

Actually, all I set out to do was to see whether she was in the appropriate high school yearbook, because I had a $10,000 wager with Ron Unz over that precise question.

If it had not been for that, I doubt I would have gone as far with this as I did. In fact, to be honest, I never thought the question was of all that much interest, for the reason I give in the article. There is no particular reason to believe that some character in a fiction is a real person. They might be or they might not be.

And that’s about it. But… with Ron Unz dangling $10,000, I finally figured it was worth trying a bit harder. Not just the 10 grand but the fact that Ron was making such a big deal about this. “Oh, Revusky doesn’t believe Betty Ong is real. What a nutter he is!” Even independently of the ten grand, that kind of shit is tiresome and, obviously, if I could show him up on this, I would!

But again, there is no particular reason to think that any of these characters they present us are real. They might or might not be. How hard should it be, at long last, to understand that finally?

Well, you did prove that there was no Asian Betty Ong in blurry internet year book pages

Elizabeth Ong would have been on the same page as the other Os. But still, I think a look at an original print copy and school enrollment lists would have been solid proof that she did or did not exist.

So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

A few questions:

Why didn’t he go to 101 Grove st San Francisco where the marriage divorce birth and death records are kept and ask for the birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born between say 1954 and 1958. Why didn’t he check them all to see if one on them was the child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

If there was no birth certificate why didn’t he go to every county in California and look for the birth certificate of Betty Ong child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

If he wanted to check the high school yearbooks why didn’t he just call or go to Washington high and ask to see an original yearbook. Schools keep original yearbook copies in their libraries.

Why didn’t he also ask for her transcript? Why not ask to look at enrollment records and the graduation announcement.?

He didn’t do any of this. He just putzed on the around on the internet. Last summer someone posted that he worked near the WTC and saw the whole thing. Some idiot internet “researcher” posted a refutation of the eyewitness statement.

That idiot internet researcher whose never been in Manhattan in his life) claimed that he looked on google maps and the eye witness could not have seen the WTC.

Ok, I’ll concede that the phone call to American operations center was a total fake and that Betty Ong never existed.

But why create a fake attendant? Why not just use the name of one of several attendants in that flight???? Every person in that plane either died in the crash, were executed in a convenient CIA mossad execution center or is living in a CIA mossad gulag somewhere.

The phone call could have been faked using the name of any attendant on that plane. Why bother creating a fake attendant????

I’m going north end of May. Maybe I’ll visit 101 Grove st and Washington high to see what I can find.

If I find an Elizabeth Ong, child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong born in 1956 I’ll be sure to let everyone know.

Even 6th graders are told Wikipedia is not reliable. Why do so many adults think they are doing research by reading Wikipedia?

He didn’t do any of this. He just putzed on the around on the internet. Last summer someone posted that he worked near the WTC and saw the whole thing. Some idiot internet “researcher” posted a refutation of the eyewitness statement.

That idiot internet researcher whose [sic] never been in Manhattan in his life) claimed that he looked on google maps and the eye witness could not have seen the WTC. [sic]

Well, what do you know. It looks like my exchange last summer with Shouting Thomas at UR may have have morphed into an urban legend, which anon[257] uses here as the basis for a big bullshit story in a gold frame.

Just to set the record straight, here’s that conversation between me and Shouting Thomas from last summer about his claimed sighting of both WTC crashes:

9. Shouting Thomas says:
August 14, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT • 100 Words

I had an excellent view of the WTC from my big office windows on 14th St. and 8th Ave.

I watched both planes fly into the WTC.

I held the hand of one of my co-workers whose father was the maintenance supervisor of the TV towers. We watched as her father died.

I was just having a look at that Chelsea neighborhood using Google maps. and I was wondering how you saw United 175 hit the WTC, since from your location, it would appear that the airplane’s approach — and crash — would have been blocked by the WTC itself, as well as other buildings.

I see that 80 8th Ave. is a 20 story, 282-foot, neo-gothic high-rise built in 1929, according to Emporis. The building has some unusual architectural details near its top — like some additional office space was tacked on up there — and would also appear to include Art Deco and Streamline Moderne design elements.

It seems to be the only tall building on the corner of 14th St. and 8th Ave. that could have offices and windows that look toward the WTC, so I’d be interested to learn what floor you were on when you saw both WTC crashes, and any further details you might care to share from this poignant 9/11 experience.

• Replies: @Shouting Thomas,

Shouting Thomas replied:

24. Shouting Thomas says:
August 15, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT • 100 Words

By God, you’ve got me!

I’m one of thousands of conspirators living and working in Manhattan who were paid off by secret agents of the New World Order to pretend that I saw two jets deliberately crashed into the WTC.

The Bushes paid me millions. I’ve retired in luxury to the Bahamas where they continue to pay for my daily intake of beautiful whores and coke.

So the towers are still there? No one was killed? They are all alive and living in NY metro? Or in the CIA MOSSAD gulag to which they were whisked?

An entire high school saw the first plane crash into the building while waiting in the yard for school to begin

But no, you just think you can learn everything on the internet instead of going to original sources such as people who lived and worked on lower Manhattan on that day or people in Brooklyn who had the Manhattan skyline in plain view and saw the entire thing

If I posted that I didn’t shave today some of you internet experts would demand a photo of my whiskers.

What's pathetic is that you conspiracy wackadoodles thinks it makes any difference if any of it IS a product of conspiracy. It doesn't.

Fine, let's say the 9/11 events are products of conspiracy. Let's say the CIA colluded with Mossad to do it so that America will support and fund Israel ad infinitum. Media foments distrust for all things Arabic. "Hate Islam" reigns, etc.

So what? What are you going to DO???? How are circumstances and conditions going to change?? How will the corrupted ship of state right itself?

Heck, personally, I'm inclined to believe the CIA and Mossad had a lot to do with what happened. I think the CIA and Mossad made some converts, provided ideas and support, and let external actors run with it. It doesn't surprise me a bit. Worse, I believe that puneto of a President was in on it from the git-go. Washington is corrupt, criminally treasonous right down to its last little toenail.

But, so what? The MI-complex rules. Israel dictates at least 80% of all US government policy. The productive class of American citizens is being systematically stripped of all wealth and power.

So, you want to expose "conspiracies" with a weak sauce of conjecture and Internet gossip? And everything will be fixed? America will return to equal rights under constitutional democracy? The sky will be blue, babies will laugh under the Sun of Freedom, and the Mexicans will go back to Mexico?

And I should add one more aspect of my "presumptive" case for Betty Ong's existence...

I'm certainly not familiar with the details of 9/11, but my impression is that there were something like 5-10 supposed phone calls from the hijacked planes. Now I think the "9/11 Truthers" argue that these phone calls were all faked by the "conspirators." Maybe they were and maybe they weren't, but---aside now from the Betty Ong case---no one has ever suggested that that those alleged callers weren't actually real-life people.

So why would the "conspirators" fake almost all of the calls from real people, but then also invent a fictitious Betty Ong for just one of them? That latter step required them to enlist all of Betty Ong's supposed family members and friends in the "conspiracy," obviously making it much more complex and vulnerable, especially given her high profile as a victim. Plus they then had the need to forge H.S. yearbook pages over 16 years after the attacks. Very odd behavior for even semi-competent "conspirators"...

I'll just put these questions out to 9/11 experts, which excludes myself...

To find out whether or not the official story holds water, the best thing one can do is simply forget about half-baked stories like this one and just stick to the physical evidence. A very good exposition can be found on the website of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth

This website has been endorsed by about 3000 members of both professions – these people know what is and what is not physically possible when it comes to collapsing buildings.

Among many other compelling items, the collection features a very solid scientific paper that shows directly and unambiguously the presence of explosives in the dust produced by the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. A direct link to the paper is here

In this study, small chips of unreacted explosive could be extracted from the dust, characterised by chemical and microscopic analysis, and ignited by heating to 420 degrees centigrade. Unlike jet fuel, this kind of explosive/incendiary (nanothermite) is known to melt steel, and it thus can account for the otherwise unexplained observations of molten metal immediately before the collapse and also for a considerable time afterwards.

Just invest two hours or so – the question is more than important enough to merit this much time from even the busiest individuals – and for these two hours, suspend disbelief, and set aside all questions about actors and their motives, ethics, and honesty. Focus on this question only: what do the demonstrable physical facts indicate about possible mechanisms of collapse? If you approach this question with an open mind, you should find the answer to be quite clear and compelling.

To find out whether or not the official story holds water, the best thing one can do is simply forget about half-baked stories like this one and just stick to the physical evidence.

Well, of course, you're right. The physical evidence accumulated by AE911Truth is much stronger than this stuff about Betty Ong or anybody else of the cast of characters they presented us in this silly narrative. Moreover, once you understand how preposterous the overall narrative is, you really have no particular reason to believe that any of these characters, like Betty Ong or any of the others, are real people. They might be, but they might not.

BUT.... here's the thing. I did have a $10,000 wager with Ron Unz over whether Betty Ong was in the appropriate high school yearbook. And that was actually the origin of this article.

The point of the article was certainly NOT to present Betty Ong as the strongest key evidence regarding 9/11! (Like, what do you take me for!!?? LOL!)

What makes you put your amateur faith in that crew of architects and engineers who are, even if genuinely qualified people, just a minute fraction of the number of such people in America, who do not show that any significant number are researchers rather than mere cheer squad signatories, and who have not been able to add anyone with any credibility to their number in many years?

Trying to check AAs payroll records makes a lot more sense than just claiming Betty Ong never existed.

Another attendant, Ms Sweeney was on the same flight and on the phone to AA as long as Ms Ong was.

So did Ms Sweeney not exist either?

Checking AA records would be easy. Just pretend to be a prospective employer asking for a reference.

Companies don’t give references any more for fear of lawsuits. But they will tell anyone who asks for a reference that the person was employed from date of first employment to the day employment ended.

Both in the internet and in bookstores and libraries are manuals of investigation, skip tracing, detection and looking for long lost relatives and friends.

It’s obvious Revulsky didn’t educate himself about the basics of investigation
before he set out to prove Ms never existed.

So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

Actually, all I set out to do was to see whether she was in the appropriate high school yearbook, because I had a $10,000 wager with Ron Unz over that precise question.

If it had not been for that, I doubt I would have gone as far with this as I did. In fact, to be honest, I never thought the question was of all that much interest, for the reason I give in the article. There is no particular reason to believe that some character in a fiction is a real person. They might be or they might not be.

And that's about it. But... with Ron Unz dangling $10,000, I finally figured it was worth trying a bit harder. Not just the 10 grand but the fact that Ron was making such a big deal about this. "Oh, Revusky doesn't believe Betty Ong is real. What a nutter he is!" Even independently of the ten grand, that kind of shit is tiresome and, obviously, if I could show him up on this, I would!

But again, there is no particular reason to think that any of these characters they present us are real. They might or might not be. How hard should it be, at long last, to understand that finally?

Next time I’m up there, I might just go to Washington high and see what’s what.

Or maybe not.

Looks as though you won the bet if those yearbook pages you posted are authentic.

Looks as though you won the bet if those yearbook pages you posted are authentic.

He hasn't won anything, because he completely refuses to deal with the very plausible theory that the Betty Ng in the spring 1974 yearbook (whose picture turns up on one of the memorial sites for Betty Ong) actually is Betty Ong.As is usually the case with Revusky, he just tries to wave that away, ridicule it and wear out his critics with endless, tiresome ramblings that never really address any of their substantial points of criticism.The man is completely incapable of engaging in reasoned dialogue.

Ong is to Ng what Mohammed is to Mohamed, Muhammad, Muhammat and Mohammad. Transliterations are what happens when languages use other alphabets. How do you spell the name of the former dictator of Libya? Did he not exist because every newspaper spelled his name idiosyncratically?

You’ve certainly lost your bet until you somehow demonstrate that the two women who graduated in the same year – with the same face – from the same high school – with the same Chinese surname – and same Anglo first name are actually different people – good luck!

I know she’s not an immigrant. But many commenters blathered on about name changes during immmigration as if immigrants changed their names several times after arrival

I personally know a few immigrants that have changed their name several years after arrival. Sometimes they want to use their actual name once citizenship is sorted out instead of using what fit in the visa application.

Also perhaps they are tired of people continually being mistaken about their nationality. Going on and on about how it never happens is factually incorrect as people have and do change their names for all sorts of reasons.

Based on what I’ve read so far, I’d say I’m now about 90-95% convinced that Betty Ong probably did exist.

Oh really? Out of curiosity, could you explain your reasoning on that?

Now, to be clear, I pose the above question because I am very interested in how you would answer, but as regards the $10,000 wager, it doesn't actually matter that much. The fact of the matter is that this is getting really very cringe-worthy because you are willfully misrepresenting the situation. I will emphasize this key point:

Ron, we did not have any wager over whether Betty Ong, the flight attendant existed. The wager was purely about her presence in the yearbook. And you clearly lost said wager.

This is the precise text from an email of yours on 2 July 2016:

I really think you're totally wasting your time on this nonsense, but if you'd like to take a "bet" how about this. Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates. If her name isn't listed, I'll pay you $10,000. There would still be a very good chance she existed and the newspaper just got the graduation year wrong, but I'd still pay up.

Clearly, by the letter of the text, I won, since there is no Betty Ong in the 1974 yearbook. However, I reason that neither of us are lawyers and we weren't negotiating some contract with super precise language. Thus, I reasoned that if there was a young Betty Ong in the 1973 yearbook, I would concede that you had prevailed. If there was a Beatrice Ong or a Bettina Ong who was credibly the same person as made the phone call from the plane, I'd say, okay, fine. And if it was in the 1973 yearbook or the 1975 yearbook even, as opposed to 1974, that would be okay.

I really try to be reasonable in my dealings with people.

But.. OBVIOUSLY it had to be a younger version of the Betty Ong that we were presented on 9/11. It can't be a black girl! Like, obviously, if I had a wager with somebody that Ron Unz is in some high school yearbook from the seventies, the meaning of the wager is that there is a younger version of you in there. It can't be a completely different person who just happens to have the same name. And obviously a black Ron Unz, or a Chinese Ron Unz is out of the question!

What then happened is that you started arguing with me like some kind of shyster lawyer that since the name was in there (next to a black girl!) that you had not lost the wager!

He recently came back to me, saying he’d now found the yearbook pages online, and that although they did indeed include her name, the photo was wrong, proving that the pages had been forged to cover up the gigantic 9/11 conspiracy.

Ron, this seems mendacious. I never claimed to know for sure why there is a black Betty Ong on that page in the 1973 yearbook. In fact, the best theory I have about that is that it was NOT done by the 9/11 conspirators. Most likely, somebody did it as a "duping delight" prank. But I don't know for sure and I never claimed to know.

Also, I did not claim that "the photo was wrong". In fact, I do not believe that. I believe that the name is wrong! I think the photo on that page, of the black girl, is RIGHT! It is probably the black girl whose last name is Ole in the 1972 yearbook. However, nothing depends absolutely on that either, mind you.

Regardless, Ron, in any permutation of all of this, you clearly lost the wager. You can argue all you want about the letter of what was said, but OBVIOUSLY, the meaning, i.e. the spirit of the wager was that, if we got our hands on the appropriate yearbook, it would clear up the whole question, i.e. there is a younger version of Betty Ong, the Chinese flight attendant, in the appropriate yearbook.

But anyway, by the letter of the wager, you already lost, because the wager was specifically about the 1974 yearbook.

Needless to say, I’m not going to pay Jonathan anything unless he comes up with much better evidence for his astonishing claim,

What "astonishing claim", Ron? The wager was solely about whether the Chinese flight attendant, Betty Ong, is in the appropriate yearbook. She is not. A black girl labeled as Betty Ong clearly doesn't work.

You are talking as if we had some wager, where, in order to win, I had to demonstrate the negative, i.e. to demonstrate that Betty Ong never existed. That is simply not the case.

Moreover, there was never any onus on me to write this article or to argue with a bunch of bad-faithed trolls here in order to win the wager. All I had to do to win the wager was to demonstrate that the Betty Ong of 9/11 is not in the appropriate yearbook.

So, what actually happened is that I sent you the appropriate information, I think on 9 April. It was very well broken down and my estimate is that it would have taken you at most 10-15 minutes to look through it and ascertain what I was telling you. (Basically the information that appears in a more polished, witty form in the article above.) You then responded indignantly that you didn't have the time to go through the information I sent you.

Of course, this is typical Ronnie Unz bullshit, that when you are cornered in a debate, you start saying you don't have time to reply. I'm too busy, I have my work to get back to, blah blah... This is your shtick, and, as far as I can tell, you never concede a debating point. You just always walk away from a debate. Okay, be that way, but the problem in this instance, is that you seemed to lack the situational awareness to realize that if you declined to look at the information I sent you, you were automatically conceding that you had lost the wager.

I mean, that's how it works. If we play tennis and I serve and you don't make any attempt to return serve, you conceded the point. I told you this. I guess (like Betty Ong) you never played any sports in school and don't understand basic things like this.

But anyway, all of this business of me writing an article and all that, I did that because, finally, it struck me as something interesting to do and that it could be interesting for readers and so forth. You seemed to believe at this point that you had not lost the wager and it was hanging in the balance based on reaction to the article and basically, you started clutching at straws in some weird way.

But, to me, frankly, it was always about 1000% obvious that, even before I wrote the article, you had already effectively conceded the wager. I sent you the information, you basically declined to look at it, which is just as well, because if you looked at it, you'd see that you clearly lost. There is no Chinese Betty Ong in any of these yearbooks.

You can't really do deep-water fishing in a kiddie pool...

And, as I said earlier, there is no Beatrice Ong, no Bettina Ong. And her siblings, who supposedly went to the same school, aren't in any yearbook either! Even the minimal life details of these people that we have (which is practically nothing) even this little bit doesn't check out! So you didn't just lose the wager, frankly. You lost at like a 1000% level!

So, that's where we're at. Leading to the question, Ron: when are you going to simply going to pay up?

by the letter of the wager, [Ron Unz] already lost, because the wager was specifically about the 1974 yearbook.

Not so fast. A key term of the wager was this:

Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates.

So Revusky really does need to get hold of an actual hard copy of the yearbook as a precondition to winning the bet.

If her name isn’t listed, I’ll pay you $10,000.

According to Revusky’s post, Betty Ong’s name IS listed on the digitalized pages, although perhaps falsely inserted and/or falsely associated with the picture of another girl. Revusky’s observations suggest – but do not prove – that Betty Ong’s name

If – as Revusky’s observations suggest – Betty Ong’s name is not listed in the 1974 hard copy, then he should win.

One would hope that both of parties will be gentlemanly rather than pedantic in interpreting the terms left unstated in the exchange – i.e., Revusky concedes that he loses if Betty Ong’s name appears in the yearbooks for at least 1973 and perhaps 1975 as well as 1974, and Unz concedes that he loses if Betty Ong’s name appears in the hard copy yearbook juxtaposed with the picture of the “black Betty Ong” rather than a Chinese girl, even though technically Betty Ong’s “name” would be in the yearbook under this scenario.

This could be the beginning of a fascinating race. Let’s keep to 19th century rules and decorum, like the wager made among members of a gentlemen’s club in “Around the World in 80 Days.”

So Revusky really does need to get hold of an actual hard copy of the yearbook as a precondition to winning the bet.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is much chance that Betty Ong the Chinese flight attendant from 9/11 is in the physical yearbook but they, for some reason, did not scan her photo into the digitized version?

That's a rather strange scenario, isn't it? I would have assumed that if there was a discrepancy, Betty Ong (I mean the Chinese one obviously) would be in the digitized version but NOT in the hard copy original.

It's very hard for me to conceive of scenarios in which Betty Ong is in the hard copy original but not in the digitized version.

An extensive clip from Ong's call to headquarters was used for the beginning of the 2012 film Zero Dark Thirty. The clip was used without attribution, and without the consent of Ong's family. They requested that Warner Brothers, the film's U.S. distributor, make a charitable donation in her name, credit her onscreen,...

Contact the family. Case closed.

Lots of students choose not to take school photos.

Contact the family. Case closed.

A number of people are saying this, but I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why they think this would resolve the matter. If Betty Ong really existed and was this person’s sister, they would say: “Yes, of course, I had a sister named Betty who died in a plane on 9/11″

AND… if these people were just crisis actors, they would say the EXACT SAME THING!

Like, you think maybe the various board members of the Betty Ann Ong Foundation will, when contacted, come clean and admit that Betty Ong never existed.

It doesn’t seem likely to me, but if (unlke me) you think that is a promising approach, then contact them yourself! And report back!

To find out whether or not the official story holds water, the best thing one can do is simply forget about half-baked stories like this one and just stick to the physical evidence. A very good exposition can be found on the website of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/

This website has been endorsed by about 3000 members of both professions - these people know what is and what is not physically possible when it comes to collapsing buildings.

Among many other compelling items, the collection features a very solid scientific paper that shows directly and unambiguously the presence of explosives in the dust produced by the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. A direct link to the paper is here

http://tinyurl.com/wtc-dust-thermite

In this study, small chips of unreacted explosive could be extracted from the dust, characterised by chemical and microscopic analysis, and ignited by heating to 420 degrees centigrade. Unlike jet fuel, this kind of explosive/incendiary (nanothermite) is known to melt steel, and it thus can account for the otherwise unexplained observations of molten metal immediately before the collapse and also for a considerable time afterwards.

Just invest two hours or so - the question is more than important enough to merit this much time from even the busiest individuals - and for these two hours, suspend disbelief, and set aside all questions about actors and their motives, ethics, and honesty. Focus on this question only: what do the demonstrable physical facts indicate about possible mechanisms of collapse? If you approach this question with an open mind, you should find the answer to be quite clear and compelling.

To find out whether or not the official story holds water, the best thing one can do is simply forget about half-baked stories like this one and just stick to the physical evidence.

Well, of course, you’re right. The physical evidence accumulated by AE911Truth is much stronger than this stuff about Betty Ong or anybody else of the cast of characters they presented us in this silly narrative. Moreover, once you understand how preposterous the overall narrative is, you really have no particular reason to believe that any of these characters, like Betty Ong or any of the others, are real people. They might be, but they might not.

BUT…. here’s the thing. I did have a $10,000 wager with Ron Unz over whether Betty Ong was in the appropriate high school yearbook. And that was actually the origin of this article.

The point of the article was certainly NOT to present Betty Ong as the strongest key evidence regarding 9/11! (Like, what do you take me for!!?? LOL!)

Jonathan - I did not mean to suggest that you are a moron; I generally try to only treat people as morons (and then silently) once they have unambiguously proven themselves.

I find your findings neither implausible nor irrelevant - they will just not sway anyone who is not already convinced that 9/11 was indeed a staged false flag operation. My suggestion was meant for this group of people (which seems to include Ron, to whom I replied). Until just a couple of months ago, I was in that group myself, and what swayed me, quickly and decisively, was indeed the physical evidence.

Next time I’m up there, I might just go to Washington high and see what’s what.

Or maybe not.

Looks as though you won the bet if those yearbook pages you posted are authentic.

Looks as though you won the bet if those yearbook pages you posted are authentic.

He hasn’t won anything, because he completely refuses to deal with the very plausible theory that the Betty Ng in the spring 1974 yearbook (whose picture turns up on one of the memorial sites for Betty Ong) actually is Betty Ong.
As is usually the case with Revusky, he just tries to wave that away, ridicule it and wear out his critics with endless, tiresome ramblings that never really address any of their substantial points of criticism.
The man is completely incapable of engaging in reasoned dialogue.

by the letter of the wager, [Ron Unz] already lost, because the wager was specifically about the 1974 yearbook.

Not so fast. A key term of the wager was this:

Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates.

So Revusky really does need to get hold of an actual hard copy of the yearbook as a precondition to winning the bet.

If her name isn’t listed, I’ll pay you $10,000.

According to Revusky's post, Betty Ong's name IS listed on the digitalized pages, although perhaps falsely inserted and/or falsely associated with the picture of another girl. Revusky's observations suggest - but do not prove - that Betty Ong's name

If - as Revusky's observations suggest - Betty Ong's name is not listed in the 1974 hard copy, then he should win.

One would hope that both of parties will be gentlemanly rather than pedantic in interpreting the terms left unstated in the exchange - i.e., Revusky concedes that he loses if Betty Ong's name appears in the yearbooks for at least 1973 and perhaps 1975 as well as 1974, and Unz concedes that he loses if Betty Ong's name appears in the hard copy yearbook juxtaposed with the picture of the "black Betty Ong" rather than a Chinese girl, even though technically Betty Ong's "name" would be in the yearbook under this scenario.

This could be the beginning of a fascinating race. Let's keep to 19th century rules and decorum, like the wager made among members of a gentlemen's club in "Around the World in 80 Days."

So Revusky really does need to get hold of an actual hard copy of the yearbook as a precondition to winning the bet.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is much chance that Betty Ong the Chinese flight attendant from 9/11 is in the physical yearbook but they, for some reason, did not scan her photo into the digitized version?

That’s a rather strange scenario, isn’t it? I would have assumed that if there was a discrepancy, Betty Ong (I mean the Chinese one obviously) would be in the digitized version but NOT in the hard copy original.

It’s very hard for me to conceive of scenarios in which Betty Ong is in the hard copy original but not in the digitized version.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is much chance that Betty Ong the Chinese flight attendant from 9/11 is in the physical yearbook but they, for some reason, did not scan her photo into the digitized version?

That’s a rather strange scenario, isn’t it? I would have assumed that if there was a discrepancy, Betty Ong (I mean the Chinese one obviously) would be in the digitized version but NOT in the hard copy original.

It’s very hard for me to conceive of scenarios in which Betty Ong is in the hard copy original but not in the digitized version.

I am not suggesting ANYTHING about the substance of the wager. As you will see, my comments in this thread go both ways. You have certainly raised some fascinating issues.

My sole point is that the express terms of the wager as cited by you (Revusky) require you to come up with an original hard copy of the year book. This was an expressly stipulated precondition to which you agreed by taking up the challenge.

Almost certainly, Betty Ong IS Betty Ng and your dismissiveness of that fact demonstrates your conceit and ignorance.

Many people have narcissistic tendencies, but not many have the true personality disorder. Unfortunately, based on this episode as well as your past responses to commentators, you are one of the latter. You have a bit of a knack for writing, but it is my impression that you believe you are much more intelligent than your readers think you are.

I’m trying to understand why Ron Unz accepted any more of your articles. My best guess is that you are a sort of a lightning rod. I think your stuff would be better suited to a site like Infowars.

Bullshit. It is OBVIOUSLY NOT the same person. You really think that they misspelt this person's surname the exact same way in two consecutive yearbooks AND the graduating class list on sfgenealogy.org!

That's pretty much a total non-starter already. And the photo is clearly of a different person. Just look.

And don't give me this nonsense about Ng being the same surname as Ong. It obviously isn't. Like you think this person

Based on what I’ve read so far, I’d say I’m now about 90-95% convinced that Betty Ong probably did exist.

Oh really? Out of curiosity, could you explain your reasoning on that?

Now, to be clear, I pose the above question because I am very interested in how you would answer, but as regards the $10,000 wager, it doesn't actually matter that much. The fact of the matter is that this is getting really very cringe-worthy because you are willfully misrepresenting the situation. I will emphasize this key point:

Ron, we did not have any wager over whether Betty Ong, the flight attendant existed. The wager was purely about her presence in the yearbook. And you clearly lost said wager.

This is the precise text from an email of yours on 2 July 2016:

I really think you're totally wasting your time on this nonsense, but if you'd like to take a "bet" how about this. Suppose you do what I suggested and invest $500 or whatever to obtain a copy of the 1974 George Washington H.S. from one of her old classmates. If her name isn't listed, I'll pay you $10,000. There would still be a very good chance she existed and the newspaper just got the graduation year wrong, but I'd still pay up.

Clearly, by the letter of the text, I won, since there is no Betty Ong in the 1974 yearbook. However, I reason that neither of us are lawyers and we weren't negotiating some contract with super precise language. Thus, I reasoned that if there was a young Betty Ong in the 1973 yearbook, I would concede that you had prevailed. If there was a Beatrice Ong or a Bettina Ong who was credibly the same person as made the phone call from the plane, I'd say, okay, fine. And if it was in the 1973 yearbook or the 1975 yearbook even, as opposed to 1974, that would be okay.

I really try to be reasonable in my dealings with people.

But.. OBVIOUSLY it had to be a younger version of the Betty Ong that we were presented on 9/11. It can't be a black girl! Like, obviously, if I had a wager with somebody that Ron Unz is in some high school yearbook from the seventies, the meaning of the wager is that there is a younger version of you in there. It can't be a completely different person who just happens to have the same name. And obviously a black Ron Unz, or a Chinese Ron Unz is out of the question!

What then happened is that you started arguing with me like some kind of shyster lawyer that since the name was in there (next to a black girl!) that you had not lost the wager!

He recently came back to me, saying he’d now found the yearbook pages online, and that although they did indeed include her name, the photo was wrong, proving that the pages had been forged to cover up the gigantic 9/11 conspiracy.

Ron, this seems mendacious. I never claimed to know for sure why there is a black Betty Ong on that page in the 1973 yearbook. In fact, the best theory I have about that is that it was NOT done by the 9/11 conspirators. Most likely, somebody did it as a "duping delight" prank. But I don't know for sure and I never claimed to know.

Also, I did not claim that "the photo was wrong". In fact, I do not believe that. I believe that the name is wrong! I think the photo on that page, of the black girl, is RIGHT! It is probably the black girl whose last name is Ole in the 1972 yearbook. However, nothing depends absolutely on that either, mind you.

Regardless, Ron, in any permutation of all of this, you clearly lost the wager. You can argue all you want about the letter of what was said, but OBVIOUSLY, the meaning, i.e. the spirit of the wager was that, if we got our hands on the appropriate yearbook, it would clear up the whole question, i.e. there is a younger version of Betty Ong, the Chinese flight attendant, in the appropriate yearbook.

But anyway, by the letter of the wager, you already lost, because the wager was specifically about the 1974 yearbook.

Needless to say, I’m not going to pay Jonathan anything unless he comes up with much better evidence for his astonishing claim,

What "astonishing claim", Ron? The wager was solely about whether the Chinese flight attendant, Betty Ong, is in the appropriate yearbook. She is not. A black girl labeled as Betty Ong clearly doesn't work.

You are talking as if we had some wager, where, in order to win, I had to demonstrate the negative, i.e. to demonstrate that Betty Ong never existed. That is simply not the case.

Moreover, there was never any onus on me to write this article or to argue with a bunch of bad-faithed trolls here in order to win the wager. All I had to do to win the wager was to demonstrate that the Betty Ong of 9/11 is not in the appropriate yearbook.

So, what actually happened is that I sent you the appropriate information, I think on 9 April. It was very well broken down and my estimate is that it would have taken you at most 10-15 minutes to look through it and ascertain what I was telling you. (Basically the information that appears in a more polished, witty form in the article above.) You then responded indignantly that you didn't have the time to go through the information I sent you.

Of course, this is typical Ronnie Unz bullshit, that when you are cornered in a debate, you start saying you don't have time to reply. I'm too busy, I have my work to get back to, blah blah... This is your shtick, and, as far as I can tell, you never concede a debating point. You just always walk away from a debate. Okay, be that way, but the problem in this instance, is that you seemed to lack the situational awareness to realize that if you declined to look at the information I sent you, you were automatically conceding that you had lost the wager.

I mean, that's how it works. If we play tennis and I serve and you don't make any attempt to return serve, you conceded the point. I told you this. I guess (like Betty Ong) you never played any sports in school and don't understand basic things like this.

But anyway, all of this business of me writing an article and all that, I did that because, finally, it struck me as something interesting to do and that it could be interesting for readers and so forth. You seemed to believe at this point that you had not lost the wager and it was hanging in the balance based on reaction to the article and basically, you started clutching at straws in some weird way.

But, to me, frankly, it was always about 1000% obvious that, even before I wrote the article, you had already effectively conceded the wager. I sent you the information, you basically declined to look at it, which is just as well, because if you looked at it, you'd see that you clearly lost. There is no Chinese Betty Ong in any of these yearbooks.

You can't really do deep-water fishing in a kiddie pool...

And, as I said earlier, there is no Beatrice Ong, no Bettina Ong. And her siblings, who supposedly went to the same school, aren't in any yearbook either! Even the minimal life details of these people that we have (which is practically nothing) even this little bit doesn't check out! So you didn't just lose the wager, frankly. You lost at like a 1000% level!

So, that's where we're at. Leading to the question, Ron: when are you going to simply going to pay up?

You lost at like a 1000% level!

So, does that mean Mr. Unz has to pay you $100,000….

Mr. Revusky,

you are an absolute hoot to me! I am very pleased to read that you have sincerely promised to refrain from doxxing anyone. Very honorable of you.

I also want to correct commenter Frankie P:

Jonathan Revusky,

Did you make the apology in a personal correspondence? If so, why? The threat to dox him was public, why isn’t the apology also public?

I regard and consider his opening statement as and to be a public apology:

“As one of the conditions of considering publication of this article, Ron Unz has required me to personally apologize to commenter Rurik for having previously threatened to “dox” him based on our private correspondence. I am therefore providing that apology, and also sincerely promising to make no such threats nor take such actions against him or any other commenters here in the future.”

The utilitarian defense of and justification for free speech is as follows:

Case 1: The minority view turns out to be true (e.g. Galileo’s statement that the earth revolves around the sun) and the majority view (the earth-centered universe) is false. In this case, it should be obvious that allowing the minority view to be expressed is beneficial to the whole of our society.

Case 2: The minority view is partially true and partially false. For example, suppose one were to argue that evolution never occurred. Even though this claim defies both a lot of evidence which supports various theories of evolution and it also brings the theory of natural selection under perhaps unjustifiable scrutiny, it nevertheless forces defenders of of various theories of evolution to reexamine both their methods (e.g. carbon dating) and their theoretical commitments (e.g. micro vs. macro evolution). Since the vast majority of social issues, and many accepted scientific theories (e.g. “Big Bang” theory) have at least a ‘touch of gray’, hearing a variety of views forces those who defend them to sharpen and enliven their arguments.

Case 3: The minority view is false and the received view is true. For example, suppose a scholar were to write a book defending the thesis that slavery never happened in the United States. Why should we even tolerate such an outlandish view?

1. Even though the scholar’s claims are false, again this forces us to revisit and perhaps rediscover much of the evidence we have documenting the history of slavery. This in turn informs both the way we do history, the way we accept truth claims, and the way we view the present.

2. The falseness of the scholar’s claims actually strengthens many of our commonly received views about not just the fact of slavery, but it’s legacy also.

So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

Actually, all I set out to do was to see whether she was in the appropriate high school yearbook, because I had a $10,000 wager with Ron Unz over that precise question.

If it had not been for that, I doubt I would have gone as far with this as I did. In fact, to be honest, I never thought the question was of all that much interest, for the reason I give in the article. There is no particular reason to believe that some character in a fiction is a real person. They might be or they might not be.

And that's about it. But... with Ron Unz dangling $10,000, I finally figured it was worth trying a bit harder. Not just the 10 grand but the fact that Ron was making such a big deal about this. "Oh, Revusky doesn't believe Betty Ong is real. What a nutter he is!" Even independently of the ten grand, that kind of shit is tiresome and, obviously, if I could show him up on this, I would!

But again, there is no particular reason to think that any of these characters they present us are real. They might or might not be. How hard should it be, at long last, to understand that finally?

Well, you did prove that there was no Asian Betty Ong in blurry internet year book pages

Elizabeth Ong would have been on the same page as the other Os. But still, I think a look at an original print copy and school enrollment lists would have been solid proof that she did or did not exist.

So Revulsky wants to prove that no Betty Ong American Airlines flight attendant born and raised in San Francisco ever existed.

A few questions:

Why didn’t he go to 101 Grove st San Francisco where the marriage divorce birth and death records are kept and ask for the birth certificates of all Elizabeth Ongs born between say 1954 and 1958. Why didn’t he check them all to see if one on them was the child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

If there was no birth certificate why didn’t he go to every county in California and look for the birth certificate of Betty Ong child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong?

If he wanted to check the high school yearbooks why didn’t he just call or go to Washington high and ask to see an original yearbook. Schools keep original yearbook copies in their libraries.

Why didn’t he also ask for her transcript? Why not ask to look at enrollment records and the graduation announcement.?

He didn’t do any of this. He just putzed on the around on the internet. Last summer someone posted that he worked near the WTC and saw the whole thing. Some idiot internet “researcher” posted a refutation of the eyewitness statement.

That idiot internet researcher whose never been in Manhattan in his life) claimed that he looked on google maps and the eye witness could not have seen the WTC.

Ok, I’ll concede that the phone call to American operations center was a total fake and that Betty Ong never existed.

But why create a fake attendant? Why not just use the name of one of several attendants in that flight???? Every person in that plane either died in the crash, were executed in a convenient CIA mossad execution center or is living in a CIA mossad gulag somewhere.

The phone call could have been faked using the name of any attendant on that plane. Why bother creating a fake attendant????

I’m going north end of May. Maybe I’ll visit 101 Grove st and Washington high to see what I can find.

If I find an Elizabeth Ong, child of Harry and Yee-Gum Ong born in 1956 I’ll be sure to let everyone know.

Even 6th graders are told Wikipedia is not reliable. Why do so many adults think they are doing research by reading Wikipedia?

It is true that a given Chinese surname can be transcribed in multiple different ways depending on dialect and personal preference, but this discussion is somewhat beside the point.

A surname is typically transcribed only ONCE, typically at the time of immigration. Once established in the U.S., Chinese immigrants rarely CHANGE the spelling of their last name.

As an exception, an immigrant surnamed Ng might decide to change to the more euphonious Ong which non-Chinese find more intuitive in speech and in writing.

As noted above, it is puzzling that the Chinese surname for Betty Ong is given as "Deng" on Wikipedia. There is no way that Deng could become Ong, regardless of dialect.

A surname is typically transcribed only ONCE, typically at the time of immigration.

EXACTLY!

It’s not even specifically about Chinese surnames, I don’t think. What it’s about is that, typically, when the patriarch of the clan came to America, the guy had some window of opportunity to choose how to trans-literate his name. So, for example, my surname of Revusky is the same name as Revutsky, which is Ukrainian. My grandfather was a Jew from Ukraine, but it has come to my attention that most of the people with that surname are Orthodox Christian Ukrainians.

But, never mind that, Revutsky and Revusky are the same surname originally. Fine, but it’s not like I’m going to start writing my last name differently. At different times, I could go by Jonathan or Jon or something else, fine. But I have NEVER spelled my surname differently than how my paternal grandfather chose to spell it. And none of the people who spell their surname Revutsky are going to start writing it the way my name is written without the t! And some people spell the final y as an i. Fine. But they ALWAYS spell their own last name consistently!

And it’s exactly the same with the Chinese, I’m sure. The patriarch maybe showed up in America a hundred plus years ago and, at a key moment, had a choice of writing his name one of various ways, like Wong or Wang or Huang or Ong (or maybe the immigration official decided for him) but once it’s established, it does not change!!

The whole idea that Betty Ong was Betty Ng in high school and then started spelling her last name differently, just for the pure heck of it, that just does NOT ring true! And there is no evidence for it anyway. As far as I can see, all of this stuff about how Chinese are constantly writing their surnames differently is just a bunch of complete bullshit!

They confuse matters talking about first names. Sure, somebody with a Chinese given name could adopt a western name to fit in. But they don’t go around changing their surnames!

In any case, they’re saying that the onus is on me to prove that Betty Ng (who looks completely different!) is not the same person as Betty Ong!

Anyway, speaking of choosing names, you seem like a reasonable person Anonymous #249. Why don’t you choose some screen name and stick to it? This whole business of trying to keep track of who you’re talking to with different numbered Anons, it’s just a total cock-up.

A number of people are saying this, but I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why they think this would resolve the matter. If Betty Ong really existed and was this person's sister, they would say: "Yes, of course, I had a sister named Betty who died in a plane on 9/11"

AND... if these people were just crisis actors, they would say the EXACT SAME THING!

Like, you think maybe the various board members of the Betty Ann Ong Foundation will, when contacted, come clean and admit that Betty Ong never existed.

It doesn't seem likely to me, but if (unlke me) you think that is a promising approach, then contact them yourself! And report back!

What do I ask?

“Hello, Ong Family. Are you for real or a bunch of crisis actors? Some guy named Revusky wants to know.”

I personally know a few immigrants that have changed their name several years after arrival. Sometimes they want to use their actual name once citizenship is sorted out instead of using what fit in the visa application.

Also perhaps they are tired of people continually being mistaken about their nationality. Going on and on about how it never happens is factually incorrect as people have and do change their names for all sorts of reasons.

Polish, sry Lankan, some Hindu, Thai and other nationalities have very long names that when translated to English are difficult to pronounce and spell in English.

But Chinese names are very short and simple. When translated to English they are written as pronounced and pronounced as spelled.

Her father was an immigrant. If he came through immigration in California, especially in the Bay Area there is no chance any immigration officer would have been confused about the name.

The children were all born here. Why change a short simple easy to pronounce name?

Any legal name change would be reflected on the filing, court order, social security records etc. what’s the use of rambling on about immigrants who might have changed their names.

The information would all be in San Francisco government records. If the idea is all so important why not just request the records and pay the small fee?

Like I said before my friend was tired of people thinking they were korean. But that doesn't matter.
The point is that it is a possibility that Betty changed her name. It is also possible that the yearbook editors weren't terribly competent and made a mistake. Your right that certainly he can rule this out by getting relevant court filings, public records etc... I doubt he will because, in his mind, it is all fake planted by the CIA like dinosaur bones to test the faithful.

So Revusky really does need to get hold of an actual hard copy of the yearbook as a precondition to winning the bet.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is much chance that Betty Ong the Chinese flight attendant from 9/11 is in the physical yearbook but they, for some reason, did not scan her photo into the digitized version?

That's a rather strange scenario, isn't it? I would have assumed that if there was a discrepancy, Betty Ong (I mean the Chinese one obviously) would be in the digitized version but NOT in the hard copy original.

It's very hard for me to conceive of scenarios in which Betty Ong is in the hard copy original but not in the digitized version.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is much chance that Betty Ong the Chinese flight attendant from 9/11 is in the physical yearbook but they, for some reason, did not scan her photo into the digitized version?

That’s a rather strange scenario, isn’t it? I would have assumed that if there was a discrepancy, Betty Ong (I mean the Chinese one obviously) would be in the digitized version but NOT in the hard copy original.

It’s very hard for me to conceive of scenarios in which Betty Ong is in the hard copy original but not in the digitized version.

I am not suggesting ANYTHING about the substance of the wager. As you will see, my comments in this thread go both ways. You have certainly raised some fascinating issues.

My sole point is that the express terms of the wager as cited by you (Revusky) require you to come up with an original hard copy of the year book. This was an expressly stipulated precondition to which you agreed by taking up the challenge.

To find out whether or not the official story holds water, the best thing one can do is simply forget about half-baked stories like this one and just stick to the physical evidence.

Well, of course, you're right. The physical evidence accumulated by AE911Truth is much stronger than this stuff about Betty Ong or anybody else of the cast of characters they presented us in this silly narrative. Moreover, once you understand how preposterous the overall narrative is, you really have no particular reason to believe that any of these characters, like Betty Ong or any of the others, are real people. They might be, but they might not.

BUT.... here's the thing. I did have a $10,000 wager with Ron Unz over whether Betty Ong was in the appropriate high school yearbook. And that was actually the origin of this article.

The point of the article was certainly NOT to present Betty Ong as the strongest key evidence regarding 9/11! (Like, what do you take me for!!?? LOL!)

Jonathan – I did not mean to suggest that you are a moron; I generally try to only treat people as morons (and then silently) once they have unambiguously proven themselves.

I find your findings neither implausible nor irrelevant – they will just not sway anyone who is not already convinced that 9/11 was indeed a staged false flag operation. My suggestion was meant for this group of people (which seems to include Ron, to whom I replied). Until just a couple of months ago, I was in that group myself, and what swayed me, quickly and decisively, was indeed the physical evidence.

Good comments Mike. The way I see things is that if some of what we've been told is both false and fraudulent, then it is prudent to suspect that all of it is. The official narrative is not just false and fraudulent, it is impossible. The idiots spouting terms such as Conspiracy Theorist, or conspiracy crazies, don't even begin to understand how they are not only idiots but they are also useful idiots, to those who would harm them, their families and their interests. Sad and pathetic.

Not to worry, Mike. I didn't think that. In fact, I actually have you mentally catalogued as one of the good guys around here. Of course, I imagine you can sense just how pissed off I'm getting about this whole situation, so my tone in that note to you probably reflects my mood, but I wasn't reproaching you, no. That certainly was not my intention!

Anyway, as regards 9/11, in the article above, I say pretty openly that the issue of whether Betty Ong is a real person even, that is not very important in terms of 9/11 specifically.

What the essay above is getting at, though, is a meta-issue, if you will, which applies to 9/11 and all the rest of these synthetic narratives. The issue is the difference between storytelling and real, established facts.

The central point is that this Betty Ong is really just a character in a story. And really a sort of cipher as well. This person has essentially no real existence outside of her role in the 9/11 narrative. Even this biography they put up of her here: http://www.bettyong.org/BettyOng.htm -- the majority of her life story is just her making that phone call! There is next to no photographic record of her and what there is looks pretty dodgy.

Yet Ron Unz expressed such confidence that this Betty Ong was real person that he wagered $10,000 that the relevant high school yearbook would clear up the issue!

That was really a piss-poor bet on Unz's part. But, aside from just how obvious it is that he lost that wager, he just refuses to understand the core concept.

There is no reason to think that a character from a narrative like this, like this Betty Ong, is a real person. They might be or might not be. Also, the idea that there is some real investigative journalism out there that would unearth this... well, no, there isn't! Nobody checks facts seemingly.

Also, while this website has some good material, it is plagued by this sort of thing. Most of the material here is purely ideological. Nobody checks any facts. These guys like Sailer and Derbyshire, they just take any of these narratives, like the suicide bomber's passport was found intact again, or whatever, they take that on face value. Can you imagine any of these guys doing what I did in this article or the last one?

Almost certainly, Betty Ong IS Betty Ng and your dismissiveness of that fact demonstrates your conceit and ignorance.

Many people have narcissistic tendencies, but not many have the true personality disorder. Unfortunately, based on this episode as well as your past responses to commentators, you are one of the latter. You have a bit of a knack for writing, but it is my impression that you believe you are much more intelligent than your readers think you are.

I'm trying to understand why Ron Unz accepted any more of your articles. My best guess is that you are a sort of a lightning rod. I think your stuff would be better suited to a site like Infowars.

Almost certainly, Betty Ong IS Betty Ng

Bullshit. It is OBVIOUSLY NOT the same person. You really think that they misspelt this person’s surname the exact same way in two consecutive yearbooks AND the graduating class list on sfgenealogy.org!

That’s pretty much a total non-starter already. And the photo is clearly of a different person. Just look.

And don’t give me this nonsense about Ng being the same surname as Ong. It obviously isn’t. Like you think this person

is the same as this person:

And not only that you think this is OBVIOUSLY the same person??? OBVIOUSLY???

C’mon. The people claiming that this is obviously the same person are OBVIOUSLY shills!

As for Ong/Ng, firstly, I don't see what's so statistically impossible about repeating a mistake three times. Strange but not impossible. Still, what is more likely is that she and others simply spelled that surname in one way for a while and then later she decided to change it to a different spelling. That's not so unusual. Perhaps her family was simply given the "wrong" surname at the time of immigration the way Hobsbawm was and she only got around to changing it later.

What’s pathetic is that you conspiracy wackadoodles thinks it makes any difference if any of it IS a product of conspiracy. It doesn’t.

Fine, let’s say the 9/11 events are products of conspiracy. Let’s say the CIA colluded with Mossad to do it so that America will support and fund Israel ad infinitum. Media foments distrust for all things Arabic. “Hate Islam” reigns, etc.

So what? What are you going to DO???? How are circumstances and conditions going to change?? How will the corrupted ship of state right itself?

Heck, personally, I’m inclined to believe the CIA and Mossad had a lot to do with what happened. I think the CIA and Mossad made some converts, provided ideas and support, and let external actors run with it. It doesn’t surprise me a bit. Worse, I believe that puneto of a President was in on it from the git-go. Washington is corrupt, criminally treasonous right down to its last little toenail.

But, so what? The MI-complex rules. Israel dictates at least 80% of all US government policy. The productive class of American citizens is being systematically stripped of all wealth and power.

So, you want to expose “conspiracies” with a weak sauce of conjecture and Internet gossip? And everything will be fixed? America will return to equal rights under constitutional democracy? The sky will be blue, babies will laugh under the Sun of Freedom, and the Mexicans will go back to Mexico?

No. But one can argue that establishing the truth for its own sake is a self-sufficient moral imperative.
It doesn't matter what exactly will change to set the record straight. It must be done simply because this is the right thing to do. As an added bonus, we'll have a neat historical demonstration of the meteoric rise of empires from and fall back to barbarism, without ever encountering civilization.

So what? What are you going to DO???? How are circumstances and conditions going to change?? How will the corrupted ship of state right itself?

One useful thing Americans could do with this information is to stop giving them what they wanted out of 911 to begin with. Stop supporting any wars and the next time something big or small happens and they say "and now we need to pass The Patriot Act 2.0" .. or they need to ban guns, or anytime US citizens are asked to sacrifice their rights, security, blood or treasure as the result of a crisis we can all just say no.

And yet after the fake chemical gas attack this month nearly everyone is back at it again in the media telling us it was real. I'm assuming most Americans just believe it.

It's possible to turn this around. Something like 75% of Americans no longer believed in the Warren Commission by the early 1990's. And now according to a recent Rasmussen poll 51% of US citizens don't believe the government's story on 911.

This is a good development. Who can be most easily taken advantage of, the credulous or the skeptical? I for one am looking forward to a time when even the conservative Americans who voted for Bush no longer believe in 911 and realize that the justifications for almost every war in the 20th century, including WWI and WWII were all shams.

It's not impossible. As Ron Unz himself pointed out that up until about 1949 the standard textbook assumption about the Civil War that most historians openly touted was that the Civil War had little or nothing to do with slavery but instead was to do with northern industrial interests.

Bullshit. It is OBVIOUSLY NOT the same person. You really think that they misspelt this person's surname the exact same way in two consecutive yearbooks AND the graduating class list on sfgenealogy.org!

That's pretty much a total non-starter already. And the photo is clearly of a different person. Just look.

And don't give me this nonsense about Ng being the same surname as Ong. It obviously isn't. Like you think this person

I don’t understand the animosity of some commenters towards Jonathan Revusky: is he not simply doing some legitimate detective work to establish the truth or otherwise of one aspect of the 9/11 story? Is he not simply applying the microscope to the story the same way many have done to subsequent false flags like Sandy Hook, the Las Vegas shootings etc? In other words, he’s a seeker after truth.
Some time ago I read a book called “Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence” by Elias Davidsson. It analysed in detail the transcripts of many of the 9/11 phone calls made from the planes (including Betty Ong’s). In my judgement, it proved conclusively that the calls were fake – they were certainly not made from an aircraft in the air and under siege. The callers were clearly reading from a script. That being the case, why not move to the next stage and, as Jonathan Revusky is doing, examine the existence or otherwise of the callers?

Sure if you have bought one of the mad truther packages start picking away at what appear to be significant questions if prima facie evidence is raised. But let it be done competently and comprehensively and not just as one tiny sliver of investigation - botched at that - to see if he can cheat the busy Ron out of $10,000.

But revulsky didn’t do any investigation. He didn’t no detective work at all

He just looked at some blurry pages scanned into the internet.

He did not
1 check her parents marriage certificate and her birth certificate.

2. High school enrollment lists graduation list transcripts or the hard copies of the yearbook kept in the school.
3. He didn’t check the airline payroll and employment records.

4. He didn’t check social security contributions, workmen comp, unemployment, pension, and the Medicare contribution and state or federal income tax records, These are all available public records.

He didn’t check property records to see if the Ongs owned or rented the store and their home. He didn’t check the business license of the store they allegedly owned.

5 He didn’t check the county clerks records to see if there had been a legal name change.

6. Any standard investigator would check the public census records for 1960 and 70 to see if Harry and Yee Gum Ong or Ng had a child named Betty. Of course her father was an immigrant. San Francisco Chinese often don’t fill out census forms till the 4th generation and even then don’t register to vote or fill out census forms.

But a basic investigation would check the census.

7. A standard investigation would check records in Andover Mass where she lived in 2001.

I used to work federal background investigations for a three-letter agency. I had a federal badge and creds. I uncovered a lot of fabricated biographies, identities and information. Individuals need a past. Where were they born? Where did they live? Where did they go to school? It’s hard for certain three-letter agencies to create such a fabricated past like Revusky investigated. OTOH, it’s easy for them to create recent history like the stuff you linked to. Revusky needs to do some gumshoe work now.

Claiming the security agencies in the Empire of Chaos has honesty? This is a new bench mark for the morally defuncted.

There is not a a single major event in history that could not be found to have 100 such inconsistencies. Every person even found guilty of murder would have walked free if they had been tried using Revulsky' Rules Of Evidence. As for Sherlock, the author of those stories thought

“an observant man might learn by an accurate and systematic examination of all that came in his way” [which] enabled one “to use observation to deduce meaning from an otherwise meaningless fact.”[ In contrast, the natural human tendency was to “spontaneously construct narratives, and firmly believe in their veracity”, which – as Konnikova writes – is exemplified by the cognitive style of Dr. Watson, in which “it is incredibly difficult to resist our desire to form narratives, to tell stories even if they may not be altogether correct, or correct at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Edalji#Conan_Doyle

As his creator admitted, Holmes was an idealised reasoner without light or shade. But we are not in the world that Doyle wrote about (an author writes about the world he would like to live in and his readers buy the book for the same reason dare say) No, we are here groping about and blundering on in an uncertain twilight world in which there is always the chance of us making a mistake, but we must act so there is always a chance of us acting mistakenly. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there no chance of our conclusion being mistaken. Sherlock Holmes would always vote for an acquittal. Meanwhile, back in the real world:-

“In the whole vast dome of living nature there reigns an open violence. A kind of prescriptive fury which arms all the creatures to their common doom: as soon as you leave the inanimate kingdom you find the decree of violent death inscribed on the very frontiers of life. You feel it already in the vegetable kingdom: from the great catalpa to the humblest herb, how many plants die and how many are killed; but, f